duane kimball on sun 16 aug 98
dear hal et al:
there is a cyberspace law site, which you may sign up for at:
http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/listserv.html
my husband's plan to begin law school this fall, specializing in
internet and intellectual property rights, has been interrupted by y2k
concerns.
meanwhile, you may enjoy reading the book ELECTRONIC CULTURE, Technology
and Visual Representation, ed. by Timothy Druckrey, pub. by Aperture.
kik in nh (kathleen kimball in new hampshire), who received her bfa in
ceramics this may at the tender age of 51....and was blessed enough to
be the commencement speaker!
hal mc whinnie on mon 17 aug 98
thanks for your response and infomation
My concern is more philospphical then it is legal.
The basic question is how does one come to own and image in the aesethic
rather then the legal sense.
How can one use images no matter from what the source.?
and the most important questions of all, since fractalss are a
consequence of mathematics, and are mathematical objects at lesst in the
beginning, can one copyright a mathematical object? can one copyright the
mandelbrot set for example? Or can one , like the Calder estate.
, copyrikght the mobile?
hal
On Sun, 16 Aug 1998 18:06:46 EDT duane kimball
writes:
>----------------------------Original
>message----------------------------
>dear hal et al:
>there is a cyberspace law site, which you may sign up for at:
>http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/listserv.html
>my husband's plan to begin law school this fall, specializing in
>internet and intellectual property rights, has been interrupted by y2k
>concerns.
>meanwhile, you may enjoy reading the book ELECTRONIC CULTURE,
>Technology
>
>and Visual Representation, ed. by Timothy Druckrey, pub. by Aperture.
>kik in nh (kathleen kimball in new hampshire), who received her bfa in
>ceramics this may at the tender age of 51....and was blessed enough to
>be the commencement speaker!
>
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
orion on tue 18 aug 98
In my opinion, the words "aesthetic" and "digital age" combined in the same
phrase/sentence (in regard to art) produce something of an oxymoron.
As much as I appreciate great photography, reducing three-dimensional work
to a two-dimensional image vastly diminishes any real concept of its
substance. Rendering an image of anything on film (or digitally) merely
relays its reflection -- period.
Anyone who has stood before a real Vermeer, Van Gogh, or Picasso understands
how little connection there is between even the best photographs and the
reality -- the aesthetic -- of art "in the flesh." Since "imaging"
hopelessly fails to convey the reality of even two-dimensional art, why
should anyone take electronic images of three-dimensional art for anything
more than a "hint" of its substance.
How -- and why -- would anyone hope to copyright such a counterfeit? In my
"heart of hearts," I simply don't believe that the aesthetic "spirit" of art
can be stolen, anyway -- only mimicked.
That's my two cents worth!
Happy-happy!! (it finally rained in the Cascades again!)
Ellen Baker -- Glacier, WA
orion@telcomplus.net
Earl Brunner on wed 19 aug 98
In a message dated 8/18/98 7:30:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
orion@telcomplus.net writes:
<< In my opinion, the words "aesthetic" and "digital age" combined in the same
phrase/sentence (in regard to art) produce something of an oxymoron.
......... reducing three-dimensional work to a two-dimensional image vastly
diminishes any real concept of its substance. Rendering an image of
anything on film (or digitally) merely relays its reflection -- period.
>>
And yet images, whether 2 or three dimensional, are what art is all about. A
landscape artist reduces three-dimensional work (what he/she sees) to a two-
dimensional image. Granted, a photograph, may never convey the full
experience of seeing an actual object, touching an actual object, experiencing
an object or a place, yet if images are of high quality they can and do touch
our spirits time and time again. Ansel Adams photographs come to mind, Van
Gogh paintings come to mind. Granted, a photo of a Van Gogh painting is not
the same as looking at the original. But we know that don't we? We don't
always have access to the originals, for a variety of reasons. I value every
picture of every pot in every pottery book I own and a few that I wish I
owned. I could not possibly get all over the world and see, touch, experience
each of those pots. Heck, at NCECA most of the galleries wouldn't let the
potters touch the pots! That was like chopping off my hands!
Images, whether on paper or represented electronically will continue to be
valuable. But who said anything about replacing the originals with the
images? I'm going to drink out of a picture of a cup?
Earl Brunner - who is perfectly happy to have a web page and sends people
there regularily.
http://users.aol.com/brunnerec/
hal mc whinnie on fri 21 aug 98
when i first presented this question I was referring to a specific
catagory of images, the computer based fractal, I was not concerned with
photographic nor with digitial representations of other art forms.
\the question remains, with the fractal images which is produced by
formula and discovered by the artist much like a face in a cloud, ought
one be able to ciopyright that image and deprive others of its use?
hal mc whinnie
On Wed, 19 Aug 1998 09:32:02 EDT Earl Brunner writes:
>----------------------------Original
>message----------------------------
>In a message dated 8/18/98 7:30:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
>orion@telcomplus.net writes:
>
><< In my opinion, the words "aesthetic" and "digital age" combined in
>the same
> phrase/sentence (in regard to art) produce something of an oxymoron.
>
> ......... reducing three-dimensional work to a two-dimensional image
>vastly
>diminishes any real concept of its substance. Rendering an image of
>anything on film (or digitally) merely relays its reflection --
>period.
> >>
>And yet images, whether 2 or three dimensional, are what art is all
>about. A
>landscape artist reduces three-dimensional work (what he/she sees) to
>a two-
>dimensional image. Granted, a photograph, may never convey the full
>experience of seeing an actual object, touching an actual object,
>experiencing
>an object or a place, yet if images are of high quality they can and
>do touch
>our spirits time and time again. Ansel Adams photographs come to
>mind, Van
>Gogh paintings come to mind. Granted, a photo of a Van Gogh painting
>is not
>the same as looking at the original. But we know that don't we? We
>don't
>always have access to the originals, for a variety of reasons. I
>value every
>picture of every pot in every pottery book I own and a few that I wish
>I
>owned. I could not possibly get all over the world and see, touch,
>experience
>each of those pots. Heck, at NCECA most of the galleries wouldn't let
>the
>potters touch the pots! That was like chopping off my hands!
>Images, whether on paper or represented electronically will continue
>to be
>valuable. But who said anything about replacing the originals with
>the
>images? I'm going to drink out of a picture of a cup?
>Earl Brunner - who is perfectly happy to have a web page and sends
>people
>there regularily.
>http://users.aol.com/brunnerec/
>
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Bruce Girrell on sat 22 aug 98
OK, OK.
You keep bringing it up, so I'll jump in here.
One cannot patent or copyright mathematical things. However, one can patent
a method,
and more specifically a means of implementing that method. The Fast Fourier
Transform,
a powerful mathematical method that reduces computation time of Fourier
transforms
tremendously, could have been patented under current US law (though it
wasn't and is
now public domain). It could have been patented because it was a
non-intuitive, unique,
and new method AND it could be shown how one could easily implement such a
procedure
in a computational device. Mathematics and Fourier transforms remain
unpatentable.
Fractals:
There is much more to the representation of a fractal than its mathematical
description.
The famous Mandelbrot set, which you use as an example, is extremely easy to
represent
mathematically: Z(n+1) = Z(n)*Z(n) + c. It's hard to write the equation
clearly using a
text editor. The equation says "The next number that you get, Z(n+1), equals
the number
that you currently have, Z(n), times itself plus a constant, c." That's it.
You perform
operation a bunch of times at each point in the complex plane and if the
result is below
a certain threshold it is considered to belong to the set.
That can't be copyrighted or patented (though Mandelbrot's book, of course,
is copyrighted).
What could be patented is a method and machine for doing the operation. What
could be
copyrighted IMHO is a particular representation of a particular point within
the set.
A lot goes on between the computation of numbers within the set and the way
in which you
present the results to a viewer. How are the points within the set and,
especially, the
points lying *just outside* the set colored or represented? Do you do a 2-D
or 3-D
representation? What about lighting direction and color of a 3-D plot. All
of these
are artistic choices, even if you already have a program to compute the
numbers. The
result, like all art, may be judged as pleasing or not based on the artist's
choices
and the viewer's preferences. So, to me, the Mandelbrot set is not art, nor
is it
copyrightable, but a particular representation of a particular place within
(or near) the
set requires artistic skills and can be presented as art and so should be
copyrightable.
For an analogy consider photography (in effect, we are simply
"photographing" the
Mandelbrot set from a particular viewpoint). I cannot copyright Ayers Rock
or Bridal Veil
Falls, but if I take a photograph of either, you bet your butt I'm going to
copyright it.
That doesn't prevent someone else from taking another picture and
copyrighting their
version, even if they stand in the same spot 2 seconds after I take my
photo. I can publish
my photo and they can publish their's. What they can't do is copy mine and
publish it, nor
can I copy their's and publish it, even if it looks just like mine.
Bruce "but that's just _my_ opinion" Girrell
| |
|
