Lori Leary on tue 26 sep 00
I know this has been discussed on Clayart before, but something happened
this weekend that made me think...
I was visiting the Atalaya art and craft fair here this past weekend. I
came across an artist who works in copper enameling. She reduces her
work after taking it from the hot kiln (like raku). As I talked with
her, I said that I had never heard of anyone using post firing reduction
in that manner, and did she come up with the idea? She said yes, and
that she had a copyright on the process. I was sort of taken aback by
this, but I did not pursue it further. It was just too busy and crowded
to get into a potentially long winded discussion.
SO... I will bring my question to Clayart:
Can someone actually take out a copyright on a process? I could see how
the design of her artwork could be copyrighted, but the whole process?
I guess I am used to the generous sharing of ideas and processes we have
here on the list. I also feel that once new work is "out there", it is
fair game for anyone to adapt methods and ideas from it to help develop
their own work. Notice I said ADAPT, DEVELOP and OWN WORK, not COPY.
I took her bio information, because if I ever do explorethe use of her
process in my own work, I want to be able to give credit where it is
due.
Anyone care to comment?
Lori
lleary@sccoast.net
Muggy Pawleys Island, SC USA
damp box of the world.....
John Hesselberth on tue 26 sep 00
Lori Leary wrote:
>Can someone actually take out a copyright on a process? I could see how
>the design of her artwork could be copyrighted, but the whole process?
Hi Lori,
The short answer is "no". You can, however, get patents on a process if
it meets the normal definition of patentability (original, useful,
unexpected). Getting a patent is a long arduous process and you normally
have to put lots of time and several thousands of dollars into getting
one. Copyrights accrue automatically, at least in the U.S. You also are
on a time deadline to get a patent. If you publically disclose the
"invention" and don't file for a patent within 1 year (I think) you are
out of luck.
Regards, John
John Hesselberth
Frog Pond Pottery
P.O. Box 88
Pocopson, PA 19366 USA
EMail: john@frogpondpottery.com web site: http://www.frogpondpottery.com
"It is, perhaps, still necessary to say that the very best glazes cannot
conceal badly shaped pots..." David Green, Pottery Glazes
Sharon31 on tue 26 sep 00
This woman has her secret process, she does not tell to her competitors,
that is all. Like the story that Alisa wrote once about a friend of her that
had her secret way to make "eggs" and was not willing to share. Just imagine
to you where we can go if we will not able to learn new techniques without
asking our lawyers!
----- Original Message -----
From: Lori Leary
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 01:42
Subject: copyrights?
> I know this has been discussed on Clayart before, but something happened
> this weekend that made me think...
>
> I was visiting the Atalaya art and craft fair here this past weekend. I
> came across an artist who works in copper enameling. She reduces her
> work after taking it from the hot kiln (like raku). As I talked with
> her, I said that I had never heard of anyone using post firing reduction
> in that manner, and did she come up with the idea? She said yes, and
> that she had a copyright on the process. I was sort of taken aback by
> this, but I did not pursue it further. It was just too busy and crowded
> to get into a potentially long winded discussion.
> SO... I will bring my question to Clayart:
>
> Can someone actually take out a copyright on a process? I could see how
> the design of her artwork could be copyrighted, but the whole process?
>
> I guess I am used to the generous sharing of ideas and processes we have
> here on the list. I also feel that once new work is "out there", it is
> fair game for anyone to adapt methods and ideas from it to help develop
> their own work. Notice I said ADAPT, DEVELOP and OWN WORK, not COPY.
>
> I took her bio information, because if I ever do explorethe use of her
> process in my own work, I want to be able to give credit where it is
> due.
>
> Anyone care to comment?
>
> Lori
> lleary@sccoast.net
> Muggy Pawleys Island, SC USA
> damp box of the world.....
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
Chris Clarke on tue 26 sep 00
If you can copyright an art process I'm running to the copyright place right
now.
That's crap, you can't keep people from doing a process that you announce
how to do. Mostly industrial processes are protected and usually only
because when you work there you sign a piece of paper saying you won't
discuss the
process or risk being sued. (And I very seriously doubt that she's the
first, maybe the first to be successful).
Plus we all have ways of doing things that are different causing our work to
be different regardless of whether we technically use the same process.
My husband worked for Lockheed Martin for four years and he knows the
SECRETS. He can't tell me for 75 years, even though I know because they
published it in the paper.
chris clarke
Temecula, CA
chris@ccpots.com
www.ccpots.com
look again
----- Original Message -----
From: Lori Leary
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 4:42 AM
Subject: copyrights?
> I know this has been discussed on Clayart before, but something happened
> this weekend that made me think...
>
> I was visiting the Atalaya art and craft fair here this past weekend. I
> came across an artist who works in copper enameling. She reduces her
> work after taking it from the hot kiln (like raku). As I talked with
> her, I said that I had never heard of anyone using post firing reduction
> in that manner, and did she come up with the idea? She said yes, and
> that she had a copyright on the process. I was sort of taken aback by
> this, but I did not pursue it further. It was just too busy and crowded
> to get into a potentially long winded discussion.
> SO... I will bring my question to Clayart:
>
> Can someone actually take out a copyright on a process? I could see how
> the design of her artwork could be copyrighted, but the whole process?
>
> I guess I am used to the generous sharing of ideas and processes we have
> here on the list. I also feel that once new work is "out there", it is
> fair game for anyone to adapt methods and ideas from it to help develop
> their own work. Notice I said ADAPT, DEVELOP and OWN WORK, not COPY.
>
> I took her bio information, because if I ever do explorethe use of her
> process in my own work, I want to be able to give credit where it is
> due.
>
> Anyone care to comment?
>
> Lori
> lleary@sccoast.net
> Muggy Pawleys Island, SC USA
> damp box of the world.....
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
Susan Fox Hirschmann on tue 26 sep 00
Check with Library of Congress, office of Copyright....they can best answer
this question. (i have filed copyrights on many of my mixed media designs,
and trademark on my business name, so i have been thru that process.....an
inexpensive one that just takes time>) It is my impression that one can only
copyright a design, a work of art, a published or nonpublished written work,
not a process. I would think that it is a "patent" that is required on a
process, a whole other ball game, just as there could be a patent on an
invention.
The legalities of these things are best answered by the proper governing body.
susan
annandale, va
Janet Kaiser on tue 26 sep 00
Lori
I have always understood that a "process" does
not come under copyright law. A process would
have to be patented and to patent it you have to
prove that it is completely, indisputably new.
Reduction of anything in a kiln or after firing
would not fall into this category, even if it is
enamel and not ceramic.
It also costs mega bucks to file a patent these
days. The last time I heard talk about it was
when a woman patented pegs to hold socks
together in the wash... Asked if she was a
millionaire yet, she laughed and said she was
still paying off the bank loan on the patent
costs and once she had done that, she would have
to start with the legal fees on following up the
illegal copies...
This is a highly specialised area which is run
by patent lawyers who are very well paid indeed.
Even the guys writing the technical description
needed for the original application (which has
to be written in one single sentence!!!) the
researchers and translators don't do badly...
Certainly out-earn any artists I know.
Janet Kaiser
The Chapel of Art . Capel Celfyddyd
HOME OF THE INTERNATIONAL POTTERS' PATH
Criccieth LL52 0EA, GB-Wales Tel: (01766) 523570
E-mail: postbox@the-coa.org.uk
WEBSITE: http://www.the-coa.org.uk
----- Original Message -----
> I was visiting the Atalaya art and craft fair
here this past weekend. I
> came across an artist who works in copper
enameling. She reduces her
> work after taking it from the hot kiln (like
raku). As I talked with
> her, I said that I had never heard of anyone
using post firing reduction
> in that manner, and did she come up with the
idea? She said yes, and
> that she had a copyright on the process. I
was sort of taken aback by
> this, but I did not pursue it further.
Chris Clarke on wed 27 sep 00
Using a method and using an actual piece are two very different things. My
husband is a computer artist, and it is so easy to grab and paste. But he
doesn't. Yes, his company buys stock images, that's a given. But in his
own work, no.
Can you truly call the work yours if you use a piece from someone else or
can you really call it a collaboration if the artist has not collaborated
with you? Could I buy and smash a piece them glue it back together and call
it mine? I know imitation is the highest form of flattery, so they say. But
imitation means you do it like they did.
In ceramics we trade process and formula, but each of us do things in
different ways. Just the way a painter lays down a stroke. We don't have
to reinvent paint, or process. But if a person has a process that he or she
wants to keep to herself, she should not share it. It's just dumb to think
everyone at a show is a laymen. We all haunt shows just to see or even to
collect.
chris clarke
Temecula, CA
chris@ccpots.com
www.ccpots.com
look again
----- Original Message -----
From: hal mc whinnie
To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 8:13 AM
Subject: Re: copyrights?
> i doubt that she can copyright this process, in fact this may be an good
> example of catch me if you can.
>
> i have been concerned with these questions for some months since in my
> computer work I am using images of other artists which are combined in
> fractal programs. I have decided only to use dead artists and long dead at
> that like Ingres or Manet or leonardo.
>
> i would argue that an artists has an absolute reight to make use of all
that
> has gone before includeing processes.
>
> could jackson pollack copyright his drip method?
>
> hal mc whinnie
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Clarke
> To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
> Date: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 9:15 PM
> Subject: Re: copyrights?
>
>
> >If you can copyright an art process I'm running to the copyright place
> right
> >now.
> >That's crap, you can't keep people from doing a process that you announce
> >how to do. Mostly industrial processes are protected and usually only
> >because when you work there you sign a piece of paper saying you won't
> >discuss the
> >process or risk being sued. (And I very seriously doubt that she's the
> >first, maybe the first to be successful).
> >
> >Plus we all have ways of doing things that are different causing our work
> to
> >be different regardless of whether we technically use the same process.
> >
> >My husband worked for Lockheed Martin for four years and he knows the
> >SECRETS. He can't tell me for 75 years, even though I know because they
> >published it in the paper.
> >
> > chris clarke
> > Temecula, CA
> >chris@ccpots.com
> >www.ccpots.com
> > look again
> >
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Lori Leary
> >To:
> >Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 4:42 AM
> >Subject: copyrights?
> >
> >
> >> I know this has been discussed on Clayart before, but something
happened
> >> this weekend that made me think...
> >>
> >> I was visiting the Atalaya art and craft fair here this past weekend.
I
> >> came across an artist who works in copper enameling. She reduces her
> >> work after taking it from the hot kiln (like raku). As I talked with
> >> her, I said that I had never heard of anyone using post firing
reduction
> >> in that manner, and did she come up with the idea? She said yes, and
> >> that she had a copyright on the process. I was sort of taken aback by
> >> this, but I did not pursue it further. It was just too busy and
crowded
> >> to get into a potentially long winded discussion.
> >> SO... I will bring my question to Clayart:
> >>
> >> Can someone actually take out a copyright on a process? I could see
how
> >> the design of her artwork could be copyrighted, but the whole process?
> >>
> >> I guess I am used to the generous sharing of ideas and processes we
have
> >> here on the list. I also feel that once new work is "out there", it is
> >> fair game for anyone to adapt methods and ideas from it to help develop
> >> their own work. Notice I said ADAPT, DEVELOP and OWN WORK, not COPY.
> >>
> >> I took her bio information, because if I ever do explorethe use of her
> >> process in my own work, I want to be able to give credit where it is
> >> due.
> >>
> >> Anyone care to comment?
> >>
> >> Lori
> >> lleary@sccoast.net
> >> Muggy Pawleys Island, SC USA
> >> damp box of the world.....
> >>
> >>
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
> _
> >__
> >> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
> >>
> >> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> >> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
> >>
> >> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
> >melpots@pclink.com.
> >
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
> ___
> >Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
> >
> >You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> >settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
> >
> >Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
> melpots@pclink.com.
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
ZALT@AOL.COM on wed 27 sep 00
Becareful when you reproduce work of artists who have gone to the great
museum in the sky. Their work may still be under copyright. Some countries
have 30 limitations on copyright infringement. Check with you local
copyright agent. If you don't know who it is ask the nearest art museum.
Terrance
hal mc whinnie on wed 27 sep 00
i doubt that she can copyright this process, in fact this may be an good
example of catch me if you can.
i have been concerned with these questions for some months since in my
computer work I am using images of other artists which are combined in
fractal programs. I have decided only to use dead artists and long dead at
that like Ingres or Manet or leonardo.
i would argue that an artists has an absolute reight to make use of all that
has gone before includeing processes.
could jackson pollack copyright his drip method?
hal mc whinnie
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Clarke
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Date: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 9:15 PM
Subject: Re: copyrights?
>If you can copyright an art process I'm running to the copyright place
right
>now.
>That's crap, you can't keep people from doing a process that you announce
>how to do. Mostly industrial processes are protected and usually only
>because when you work there you sign a piece of paper saying you won't
>discuss the
>process or risk being sued. (And I very seriously doubt that she's the
>first, maybe the first to be successful).
>
>Plus we all have ways of doing things that are different causing our work
to
>be different regardless of whether we technically use the same process.
>
>My husband worked for Lockheed Martin for four years and he knows the
>SECRETS. He can't tell me for 75 years, even though I know because they
>published it in the paper.
>
> chris clarke
> Temecula, CA
>chris@ccpots.com
>www.ccpots.com
> look again
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Lori Leary
>To:
>Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 4:42 AM
>Subject: copyrights?
>
>
>> I know this has been discussed on Clayart before, but something happened
>> this weekend that made me think...
>>
>> I was visiting the Atalaya art and craft fair here this past weekend. I
>> came across an artist who works in copper enameling. She reduces her
>> work after taking it from the hot kiln (like raku). As I talked with
>> her, I said that I had never heard of anyone using post firing reduction
>> in that manner, and did she come up with the idea? She said yes, and
>> that she had a copyright on the process. I was sort of taken aback by
>> this, but I did not pursue it further. It was just too busy and crowded
>> to get into a potentially long winded discussion.
>> SO... I will bring my question to Clayart:
>>
>> Can someone actually take out a copyright on a process? I could see how
>> the design of her artwork could be copyrighted, but the whole process?
>>
>> I guess I am used to the generous sharing of ideas and processes we have
>> here on the list. I also feel that once new work is "out there", it is
>> fair game for anyone to adapt methods and ideas from it to help develop
>> their own work. Notice I said ADAPT, DEVELOP and OWN WORK, not COPY.
>>
>> I took her bio information, because if I ever do explorethe use of her
>> process in my own work, I want to be able to give credit where it is
>> due.
>>
>> Anyone care to comment?
>>
>> Lori
>> lleary@sccoast.net
>> Muggy Pawleys Island, SC USA
>> damp box of the world.....
>>
>>
>___________________________________________________________________________
_
>__
>> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>>
>> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
>> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>>
>> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
>melpots@pclink.com.
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
___
>Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
>You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
>settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
>Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
Earl Brunner on thu 28 sep 00
Yes, and they might even let you make pots in prison.
You also have an absolute right as an artist to be able to
be creative and original as you can too.
hal mc whinnie wrote:
>
> my whole argument is that i have an absolute right as an artists to be able
> to make use of all that has gone before.
>
> this righat supersedes any local or national law.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ZALT@AOL.COM
> To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
> Date: Thursday, September 28, 2000 4:15 AM
> Subject: Re: copyrights?
>
> >Becareful when you reproduce work of artists who have gone to the great
> >museum in the sky. Their work may still be under copyright. Some
> countries
> >have 30 limitations on copyright infringement. Check with you local
> >copyright agent. If you don't know who it is ask the nearest art museum.
> >
> >Terrance
> >
> >___________________________________________________________________________
> ___
> >Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
> >
> >You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> >settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
> >
> >Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
> melpots@pclink.com.
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots@pclink.com.
--
Earl Brunner
http://coyote.accessnv.com/bruec
mailto:bruec@anv.net
hal mc whinnie on thu 28 sep 00
my whole argument is that i have an absolute right as an artists to be able
to make use of all that has gone before.
this righat supersedes any local or national law.
-----Original Message-----
From: ZALT@AOL.COM
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Date: Thursday, September 28, 2000 4:15 AM
Subject: Re: copyrights?
>Becareful when you reproduce work of artists who have gone to the great
>museum in the sky. Their work may still be under copyright. Some
countries
>have 30 limitations on copyright infringement. Check with you local
>copyright agent. If you don't know who it is ask the nearest art museum.
>
>Terrance
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
___
>Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
>You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
>settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
>Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
Chris Clarke on thu 28 sep 00
How can you say you have special rights? Your rights supercedes no one. My
rights are the same as yours and I don't have the right to STEAL from other
artists. Yes I said steal, but your broad statement about how your rights
supercede others is just like the bullsh.t I heard in college. I would not
be surprised if you are little more than 20.
chris clarke
Temecula, CA
chris@ccpots.com
www.ccpots.com
look again
----- Original Message -----
From: hal mc whinnie
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 2:12 AM
Subject: Re: copyrights?
> my whole argument is that i have an absolute right as an artists to be
able
> to make use of all that has gone before.
>
> this righat supersedes any local or national law.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ZALT@AOL.COM
> To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
> Date: Thursday, September 28, 2000 4:15 AM
> Subject: Re: copyrights?
>
>
> >Becareful when you reproduce work of artists who have gone to the great
> >museum in the sky. Their work may still be under copyright. Some
> countries
> >have 30 limitations on copyright infringement. Check with you local
> >copyright agent. If you don't know who it is ask the nearest art museum.
> >
> >Terrance
> >
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
> ___
> >Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
> >
> >You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> >settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
> >
> >Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
> melpots@pclink.com.
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
Patti Yager on thu 28 sep 00
Hi All,
It seems to me that imitation and improvement are characteristic of
evolution in action.
Story-telling and the handing down of knowledge has allowed us to survive
as a species and improve our lot in life. We all are apprecentices in life,
copying, reproducing that which we see and use every day so that we may
hand it down in our turn.
Patti
in cold southwestern Quebec, thinking about bringing in some wood...
At 09:12 AM 9/28/00 -0000, you wrote:
>my whole argument is that i have an absolute right as an artists to be able
>to make use of all that has gone before.
>
>this righat supersedes any local or national law.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ZALT@AOL.COM
>To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
>Date: Thursday, September 28, 2000 4:15 AM
>Subject: Re: copyrights?
>
>
>>Becareful when you reproduce work of artists who have gone to the great
>>museum in the sky. Their work may still be under copyright. Some
>countries
>>have 30 limitations on copyright infringement. Check with you local
>>copyright agent. If you don't know who it is ask the nearest art museum.
>>
>>Terrance
>>
>>___________________________________________________________________________
>___
>>Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>>
>>You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
>>settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>>
>>Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
>melpots@pclink.com.
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
___
>Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
>You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
>settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
>Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
>
>
Christopher Anton on thu 28 sep 00
Hooboy!
----- Original Message -----
From: "hal mc whinnie" Subject: Re: copyrights?
> my whole argument is that i have an absolute right as an artists to be
able
> to make use of all that has gone before.
>
> this righat supersedes any local or national law.
>
U.S. copyright law allows for punitive damages of $10,000.00 per violation
of a registered copyright. If you don't have the resources to handle
someone taking you to court, you might want to allow a pragmatic position to
take precedence over your artistic one. Also, does your "artistic right"
supersede another artist's right to earn income from their work or to have
their work protected from what they may see as misuse or abuse? I think
not. I can think of no moral justification for what is, essentially,
stealing another's work. If I break into a house and take some jewelry,
merely saying "I got this from so-and-so" does not make it any more right.
The only difference here is the nature of the property involved.
Intellectual property is just as real, albeit intangible, as jewelry.
Janet Kaiser on thu 28 sep 00
Yes, I am glad Terrance has brought this up.
Some trusts take over the copyright and
administration of rights for the family or
whoever inherits the artist's work. The most
notorious in Europe is presently the Emile Nolde
trust. They have absolute control of all work
and repro rights. They also go straight to court
without any beating about the bush.
Janet Kaiser
The Chapel of Art . Capel Celfyddyd
HOME OF THE INTERNATIONAL POTTERS' PATH
Criccieth LL52 0EA, GB-Wales Tel: (01766) 523570
E-mail: postbox@the-coa.org.uk
WEBSITE: http://www.the-coa.org.uk
----- Original Message -----
> Becareful when you reproduce work of artists
who have gone to the great
> museum in the sky. Their work may still be
under copyright. Some countries
> have 30 limitations on copyright infringement.
Check with you local
> copyright agent. If you don't know who it is
ask the nearest art museum.
>
> Terrance
Carolyn Nygren Curran on fri 29 sep 00
Christopher has said the magic word--registered copyright. When I was
making some notecards years ago, I put the copyright mark with name and
date on the back of the card. There was no real legal clout to this, but
you are allowed to do it without registering the copyright. (I can't
remember my source of information, but it was something I looked up in a
book, as I recall.) When I read the original posting about the woman who
said her copper metal reduction was copyrighted, I thought at the time that
perhaps it was the same situation, but I couldn't remember (oh, those 62
yr. old synapses) the registration part of the scenario. At any rate, you
can say you're copyrighted and perhaps discourage people from copying you
without the expense of the registration. It doesn't mean much, actually,
but it makes it appear that you've got some legal teeth. For what it's
worth...and perhaps someone more articulate can explain better. cnc
hal mc whinnie on fri 29 sep 00
Let me explain more about my point of view. I have advanced the following
philosophical argument:
1] an artists, any artist has an absolute right to be able to make use of
all that has gone before them in the history of art for their own creative
purposes. this right has a history as long as art itself which of course is
far longer then the mere 200 years of the us copyright laws.
2] a work of art[ not the artist] has an absolute right not to be abused in
anyway that is either physically, or by a poor interpretation review or
opinion. this right resides in the work of art, not in the estate, or the
artists, or the present owner.
these two rights are absolute and are in conflict one with the other. the
tension produced by that conflict is at the very heart of the creative act.
When an artists decides to use the work or part of the work of another they
must address this question, how much abuse to the work of art are they
willing to tolerate in order to make their own work?
I have set this in the frame of reference of an philosophical argument to
avoid the legal question which have been developed as a part of this thread.
As to the artist's right to benefit from their work; I am more concerned
with what happens after and artist's death. In the case of O keefee, and
Martha graphic, who had no direct heirs, the estate is controlled by
individuals who have no direct stake in the original creation of the art and
who now profit for their won benefits and not that of the original artist.
I employ in my work the images of some artists[ long dead] and each time I
employ them I must address in my own mind the question of the abuse I am
doing to the work and whether or not it is justified in terms of what I
desire to do.
this process produces that tension which is apart of the creative process.
'
-----Original Message-----
From: Janet Kaiser
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Date: Friday, September 29, 2000 2:32 AM
Subject: Re: copyrights?
>Yes, I am glad Terrance has brought this up.
>Some trusts take over the copyright and
>administration of rights for the family or
>whoever inherits the artist's work. The most
>notorious in Europe is presently the Emile Nolde
>trust. They have absolute control of all work
>and repro rights. They also go straight to court
>without any beating about the bush.
>
>Janet Kaiser
>The Chapel of Art . Capel Celfyddyd
>HOME OF THE INTERNATIONAL POTTERS' PATH
>Criccieth LL52 0EA, GB-Wales Tel: (01766) 523570
>E-mail: postbox@the-coa.org.uk
>WEBSITE: http://www.the-coa.org.uk
>
>----- Original Message -----
>
>> Becareful when you reproduce work of artists
>who have gone to the great
>> museum in the sky. Their work may still be
>under copyright. Some countries
>> have 30 limitations on copyright infringement.
>Check with you local
>> copyright agent. If you don't know who it is
>ask the nearest art museum.
>>
>> Terrance
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
___
>Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
>You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
>settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
>Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
| |
|
