Beth Wheeler on wed 2 oct 96
Recently, the issue of copyright and just plain old ethics reared up in our
studios & gallery; and we are very interested to know how other potters,
clay artists, artist owned galleries feel and what your different
experiences have been & what resolution(s) came from them.
We first encountered "poaching"...then poaching escalated to direct copying
from an open magazine (a photo of a clay sculpture and a painting on a large
tile piece). Another instance occurred six months after accepting work into
the gallery, then finding a photo in an old CM issue of an exact design copy
of the clay sculpture. When the artist was approached with it, the response
was, "Oh, that was my inspiration."
We recognize that most of us are stimulated by viewing the work of others,
masters and regular folke and that it all gets filed away and somehow,
someway, someday comes out when we least expect it in a personal expression
of creation. What is our personal responsibility when we encounter
lifting....what is our legal responsibility personally and as a
gallery......any thoughts??
Regards,
Beth from Atlanta where it's colder than Boston today & foggy
Beth Wheeler
The Potters Guild
603 Atlanta Street
Roswell, GA 30075
770-641-1663
Richard Gralnik on thu 3 oct 96
There may be a fine line between poaching and great minds thinking alike.
I one made a set of faceted bowls for a friend. I decided to cut out parts of
the foot ring to make a tripod foot because I thought it would look nice.
Some time later I was thumbing through a pottery book and there was a picture
of one of my bowls, except they gave the credit to some guy named Bernard Leach.
Richard
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Richard Gralnik Ph: (310) 323-5998 x. 18
Sr. Staff Engr. Fx: (310) 323-6197
DeskTalk Systems, Inc. richardg@desktalk.com
19401 S. Vermont Ave. #F100
Torrance, CA. 90502
Leslie Goldenberg on thu 3 oct 96
As a potter -and as a former art historian- I found the recent comments about
"copyright infringement" and "poaching" to be interesting, but I disagree.
The great art critic Leo Steinberg once said that "Art is about art." Almost
all artistic expressions are derived from things that came before it. The
elements of some classic paintings and sculptures have been repeated over and
over. In some traditions, even direct copies are valued art objects. For
instance, the great Chinese landscape painter Ni Tsan inspired later artists
to produce almost exact renderings of his works, entitle them "Landscape in
the style of Ni Tsan," and earn glory for their work.
In my opinion, once an artist creates something and then takes it public, it
no longer belongs to him/her. Anyone else can interpret its meaning -- and a
valid interpretation may have no bearing whatsoever on what the artist
thought he/she was creating. And anyone else can emulate the work, draw
inspiration from it, create a satire of it, or whatever. Now, of course
there are limits. There are royalties to be paid for music and photographic
REPRODUCTIONS, but handmade ceramics are one-offs not subject to the same
sorts of conventions. Any re-creation inherently involves the introduction
of something new or slightly different. ( I am assuming we are not talking
about industrially manufactured ceramic items.)
There is another great quote, I think by Mark Twain, that sums up this whole
issue quite well, but I can't think of just how it goes. In any case, I am
looking forward to more discussion on this issue.
Leslie Goldenberg
Janathel M. Shaw on fri 4 oct 96
Leslie, that's an interesting point of view, however, I
disagree. Artists are intimately tied to their creations
and have justifiable grievience with their physical
work is co-opted by another or others.
We've all heard that there's very little original
thought in the art arena, but our individual creations
are unique to the artist's vision and skill, or at least
they should be.
As a sculptor and painter, I wouldn't be offended if
someone were influenced by my style. I would,
however, have an ethical and possibley legal
problem if another deliberately copied my work,
even if they tried to veil it with small additions.
Beth Wheeler on fri 4 oct 96
Thanks for your response Leslie.....I'm confused about your classification
of pottery/ceramics one-offs not being in the same category as other art or
original creations ethically or legally. How can we individually or
collectively as a culture progress if we accept direct copies - even though
hand created - as an expression to be valued?
On the other hand who says we "own" an idea? But then, how is"intellectual
property" different from artistic concepts and expressions. Isn't there a
difference between inspiration and plagerism?
Personally, I feel that what we create is a gift that has no ownership
attached to it; and as Vivika Heino once said, "What we give away, we keep
forever".
At 08:40 AM 10/3/96 EDT, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>As a potter -and as a former art historian- I found the recent comments about
>"copyright infringement" and "poaching" to be interesting, but I disagree.
>
>The great art critic Leo Steinberg once said that "Art is about art." Almost
>all artistic expressions are derived from things that came before it. The
>elements of some classic paintings and sculptures have been repeated over and
>over. In some traditions, even direct copies are valued art objects. For
>instance, the great Chinese landscape painter Ni Tsan inspired later artists
>to produce almost exact renderings of his works, entitle them "Landscape in
>the style of Ni Tsan," and earn glory for their work.
>
>In my opinion, once an artist creates something and then takes it public, it
>no longer belongs to him/her. Anyone else can interpret its meaning -- and a
>valid interpretation may have no bearing whatsoever on what the artist
>thought he/she was creating. And anyone else can emulate the work, draw
>inspiration from it, create a satire of it, or whatever. Now, of course
>there are limits. There are royalties to be paid for music and photographic
>REPRODUCTIONS, but handmade ceramics are one-offs not subject to the same
>sorts of conventions. Any re-creation inherently involves the introduction
>of something new or slightly different. ( I am assuming we are not talking
>about industrially manufactured ceramic items.)
>
>There is another great quote, I think by Mark Twain, that sums up this whole
>issue quite well, but I can't think of just how it goes. In any case, I am
>looking forward to more discussion on this issue.
>
>Leslie Goldenberg
>
Beth Wheeler
The Potters Guild
603 Atlanta Street
Roswell, GA 30075
770-641-1663
Karen Gringhuis on fri 4 oct 96
Visits to museums & browsing in the history book teach one that there's nothing
JJHerb@aol.com on fri 4 oct 96
Beth Wheeler: I suppose part of the answer to the question of copying is the
intention of the copyist and part of the answer is how you feel about being
associated with that intention.
>If the copyist makes a thing and represents it as the work of another, this
is forgery and fraud and things are pretty clear then. If the "artist"
consciously copies another s work or ideas, and represents it as their own,
the fraud is intellectual and maybe internal. In this case the way the outer
world feels about it may be related to the damage done to the originator of
the copied work.
>Taking the example of song lyrics, if I steal someone s poetry - which I do
all the time- and set it to someone else s music that I have also stolen -
again fairly common for me- and then record the resulting "song," the action
they can take against me depends partly on how much money I make from their
stolen ideas. In my case, I have never sold any records, so the injury to
those people, in terms of money, is slight. They have been insulted and
violated to some extent, but the court test of damage revolves around money,
mostly. If either of the people I have stolen from have reputations as
exemplars of fine poetry or music, then they could get damages from me for
having polluted their artistic efforts - my recordings are generally regarded
as pollution - by subjecting them to ridicule.
>If a person is in the "influences" area, where the general miasma of western
culture has so permeated his soul that every thing he attempts to make looks
like am MTV logo, the problem is more difficult. Did this person knowingly
appropriate that with which they were bombarded with endlessly? It is a
stretch from a popular icon like Campbell s Soup or Marilyn Monroe to a
sculpture pictured in an obscure magazine, but if the "artist" in not
consciously seeking to guide his work by knowing what informs his artistic
thinking, then he is vulnerable to novel images that can displace his own,
obviously feeble, creative vistas. In addition, our results oriented society
drives people to produce something, the process is a real non issue. If some
one makes 50 bowls or one size, any question is about the plans for the bowls
and no thought is given to the skill and knowledge gained in the process. We
give credit for product, not process. For many people, the activity is only
worth while if there is an immediate tangible result so what ever is
necessary to produce the desired visible evidence of activity is acceptable.
When you copy something, you still have something even if it is a copy.
>On the other hand, I aspire to copy a Sung tea bowl, a Yellow Porcelain Ming
bowl, a peach blossom bottle, some Korean celedon the list goes on. If I
could copy one exactly, I would be delighted. I would, however, tell
EVERYONE that I made these, that I was trying to do it, and just exactly how
difficult it was - if they were still listening. It may not be the same
thing.
>I think the legal part of the quandary for you and your studio is harder to
deal with. I think, as a non-attorney, that it is the right and
responsibility of the owner of the protected item, whether it is copy
written, trade marked, or otherwise registered, to demand the protection and
inflict whatever punishment is to be exacted. I am not sure that you or your
gallery could be a party to that unless the injured artist invites your
assistance. So I suggest you sent the piece back to the artist and indicate
that, after some thought, you have decided their work is "too derivative" and
decline to deal with them any more. If you purchased the work from them, I
suggest you break it and display it with the picture of the original and an
explanation.
>You really can t stop people from doing this kind of thing but you can
refuse to participate. The amount of effort you put into your refusal
probably indicates something about how offended you have been by the
incidents.
Joseph Herbert
JJHerb@aol.com
Dannon Rhudy on fri 4 oct 96
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
A thoughtful, non-hysterical response. I haven't followed this thread, in the
press of time. But there are interesting ideas involved. Probably everyone
has experienced something along the line of what Richard and Beth had
to say - we are influenced in ways we may not be aware of, often. And
sometimes we must be very well aware, indeed...
For instance, when I looked at the slides submitted for the Ceramics USA
exhibition, I could hardly help noticing that much of the work (60-70%, minimum)
was directly derived from a)Val Cushing, and b)Don Reitz. Some of it was
fairly subtle, the influence there but altered. Some was more direct,
nothing subtle
about it, but some small changes here and there. Some, hardly a change had
been made, except insofar as the maker had been unable to duplicate the
years of experience, the knowledge, the skill of making, and subtlety of idea
in the original piece(s). Funniest was someone who had taken a piece of
Cushing's work, directly copied the form as well as they were able, and then
done a Don Reitz wood/salt firing. I was astonished first, then annoyed,
then -
--then I laughed. Such things cannot be prevented; life's too short to worry
about it. Both Cushing and Reitz had essentially the same response to copying:
they just shrugged, smiled, said that their work had been out there a long time,
everyone is influenced by some one or ones. The attitude seemed to be that
time is too precious to spend it on such issues, and occasionally one gets
a really GOOD laugh.
Dannon Rhudy
>having polluted their artistic efforts - my recordings are generally regarded
>as pollution - by subjecting them to ridicule.
>>If a person is in the "influences" area, where the general miasma of western
>culture has so permeated his soul that every thing he attempts to make looks
>like am MTV logo, the problem is more difficult. Did this person knowingly
>appropriate that with which they were bombarded with endlessly? It is a
>stretch from a popular icon like Campbell s Soup or Marilyn Monroe to a
>sculpture pictured in an obscure magazine, but if the "artist" in not
>consciously seeking to guide his work by knowing what informs his artistic
>thinking, then he is vulnerable to novel images that can displace his own,
>obviously feeble, creative vistas. In addition, our results oriented society
>drives people to produce something, the process is a real non issue. If some
>one makes 50 bowls or one size, any question is about the plans for the bowls
>and no thought is given to the skill and knowledge gained in the process. We
>give credit for product, not process. For many people, the activity is only
>worth while if there is an immediate tangible result so what ever is
>necessary to produce the desired visible evidence of activity is acceptable.
> When you copy something, you still have something even if it is a copy.
>>On the other hand, I aspire to copy a Sung tea bowl, a Yellow Porcelain Ming
>bowl, a peach blossom bottle, some Korean celedon the list goes on. If I
>could copy one exactly, I would be delighted. I would, however, tell
>EVERYONE that I made these, that I was trying to do it, and just exactly how
>difficult it was - if they were still listening. It may not be the same
>thing.
>>I think the legal part of the quandary for you and your studio is harder to
>deal with. I think, as a non-attorney, that it is the right and
>responsibility of the owner of the protected item, whether it is copy
>written, trade marked, or otherwise registered, to demand the protection and
>inflict whatever punishment is to be exacted. I am not sure that you or your
>gallery could be a party to that unless the injured artist invites your
>assistance. So I suggest you sent the piece back to the artist and indicate
>that, after some thought, you have decided their work is "too derivative" and
>decline to deal with them any more. If you purchased the work from them, I
>suggest you break it and display it with the picture of the original and an
>explanation.
>>You really can t stop people from doing this kind of thing but you can
>refuse to participate. The amount of effort you put into your refusal
>probably indicates something about how offended you have been by the
>incidents.
>
>Joseph Herbert
>JJHerb@aol.com
>
>
Hluch - Kevin A. on mon 7 oct 96
Apparently, no man (or woman) is an island except for Val Cushing and Don
Reitz. Didn't realize that. I think they should be flattered. Perhaps
the entire course of ceramics in the U.S. has been altered by their
influences over the years. I think that with the number of opportunities
for juring over the years by these artists certainly SOME effect should
have been directly felt on the body ceramic. Isn't that the point? Or
are these contests just fashion shows?
Kevin A. Hluch
On Fri, 4 Oct 1996, Dannon Rhudy wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> >----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>
>
> For instance, when I looked at the slides submitted for the Ceramics USA
> exhibition, I could hardly help noticing that much of the work (60-70%, minimu
> was directly derived from a)Val Cushing, and b)Don Reitz. Some of it was
> fairly subtle, the influence there but altered. Some was more direct,
> nothing subtle
> about it. Both Cushing and Reitz had essentially the same response to copying
| |
|
