Re: Re: The Distorted Molotov

i agree with t.whid - there doesn't seem to an investment or profit issue here. i've spoken with a few photographers that have a REAL problem people reproducing, in any form, their work, even completely outside a commercial context. it seems to be rested on pure ideology or irrational fears or whatever. people have similar ties to other possessions. i'm relating to it through my experience growing up in a rural area where people are often incredibly protective of their land (also the case in urban areas, but played out differently), often without reason, or feeble. i have memories of stopping on a back road in the woods to take a photo (of a particular long line of "No Trespassing" signs, and, before long, was confronted by a shotgun totting land owner. in colonial America, the punishment for stealing a potato was a public whipping. today, you can get sued (a different kind of public punishment) for the unauthorized use of a picture of a potato. we've come a long way.





t.whid wrote:

> Liza wrote on her blog:
> > Joy Garnett Riot show are oil paintings of images sampled from
> > newswires and other public news media. Now she is not only being
> sued
> > by the photojournalist whose picture was sample in Molotov but she
> is
> > being asked to never show and never sell the artwork. This is
> > obviously not a case of an artist protecting his speech rights but
> of
> > one artist using his copyrights as a way to censor another artist.
> A
> > sad case of Stockholm Syndrome if there ever was.
>
> I would like to add to Liza's thoughts.
>
> I'm not sure it's censorship… Why would the photojournalist want to
> censor Joy? There really is no reason. Does the photoJ think that she
> will be financially harmed by Joy sampling her work? I doubt it. That
> would mean that someone would choose to use Joy's image instead of
> the
> original. Joy's not trying to sell repro rights of the image, Joy's
> trying to sell the painting.
>
> I think it comes down to simple pride and something similar to as the
> Stockholm Syndrome. She feels she owns this image (tho her subject
> would probably like to light her on fire with a pepsi molotov if he
> knew what she was doing with his image). It's not simply 'legal' with
> her, she probably really feels that Joy is stealing from her, it's
> become ethical with her. The twisted copyright laws of the USA have
> been internalized by her, she confuses legalities with ethics. It's
> the
> Disney Syndrome.
>
> +To crit Joy+
>
> I find it strange that there is a copyright on the original Molotov
> page which I mirrored here:
>
> http://www.twhid.com/misc/joy/molotov/
>
> If you are going to sample imagery for your own work you should at
> the
> very least release your work with a cc license which allows
> unattributed sampling, no? Or it should be released with no strings
> attached whatsoever. I mean, technically, all of our joywar pages are
> illegal.
>
> Seems a bit –let's say– inconsistent?
>
> take care,
>
>
> On Mar 5, 2004, at 12:53 AM, liza sabater wrote:
>
> > http://www.culturekitchen.com/archives/000555.html
> >
> –
>
> www.mteww.com
>
>