ZALT@AOL.COM on fri 29 sep 00
Hal stated the following:
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.
Wow?
Your philosophy is really outgoing and original. However, I suggest you
visit the government copyright web site and read up a little so that you will
not get your self into trouble some time in the future. Go to this site: HREF="http://www.loc.gov/copyright/cords/">U.S. Copyright Office CORDS Page
I am not a Lawyer, but some common sense must be foremost when following
your first philosophical premise.
Copyright is a protection of idea not process. Your first philosophical
approach is OK, when discussing process. It is not, when discussing Ideas or
creations.
You can use the paint mixing methods of dead artists, write using a similar
pencil as a living artist, use clay mixing methods of other ceramists, turn
pots in a manner of other artists in your community. But you cannot take the
images or objects and make direct replicas of creations of these artists.
Copyright does not stop you from taking an idea or an image of an artist
living or dead and reworking the theme, and the visual idea, using a
freehand hand approach to produce your image or form. If you free hand copy
a painting exactly as it appears you would be producing a, "after dead artists?" image. For example. I can take a paintbrush and freehand a
Picasso image. The painting can be almost an exact image, In fact It can
even be good enough to fool experts. However, I put my name at the bottom of
the painting not Picasso's. and I refer this painting as "the title, after
Picasso".
This is where your second philosophical idea misses. I can characterise the
image of an artist in any way or manner as I wish. I can completely change
the colour and form. I can rework it many times and still convey a very poor
interpretation of the idea or image. I can even show the image on my canvas
as defaced and torn. When I do this, the artwork will be called "Terry's
version of John Doe's, ANGEL"
If I can, somehow, take a picture of a Picasso canvas, and use the photo in
an exhibition without permission or licence from the estate caring for the
copyright, I will have broken a copyright law.
The difference of the two are as follows:
In the first case, I reprocessed the image using my own style, using my own
body movement and intellectual thought.
In the second case I reproduced the image using a direct copying method.
In some countries, taking a photo of a person walking down the road, is
considered to be stealing their spirit.
Taking a photo or photo copying someone's art is also considered stealing the
thoughts of the creator.
I can add that if I keep the photo for my personal use and never use it to
gain recognition or monetary benefit, there is no problem.
Taking that picture of someone walking down the road, even for personal use,
could get you stoned and I don't mean with alcohol.
As for the right to benefit from the art created by artists long gone. That
is why we must work to improve our copyrights. Not only when we are alive
but when we are gone. Lets face it, we create because we want our creative
ideas to be accepted by the public, to be remembered by our peers and our
families. That is one of the benefits of doing art. We want people to
question our reason, That is why we question ourselves. We want people to
recognise our work as a statement our life. We want them to research our
existence so that others can learn from our time on this earth. And if we
become a widely recognised artist during our life time, what better way is
there, than having someone designated to keep our rights into the future
after our departure. To keep the future alive with our creations we will
require finances and this can be done through copyright protection.
For what it is worth.
PS. I expect some expertise flack from this.
Terrance
ZALT@AOL.COM on sat 30 sep 00
Hal:
You seem very upset about this subject. You must have been close to the
dance company. I can see you disappointed that the trustee failed to allow
the licence of the choreography. There is one consolation. There is a
limit of time that the copyright can be withheld from the public. The time
will pass.
I assume that the company that closed was the dance company. If this is so,
then there are other dance companies. They may approach the trustee and try
to negotiate the licence. I am sure the trustees in this case just wish to
ensure the dances are choreographed exactly to the wishes of Graham. In
other words they are protecting the rights of the original artist.
Copyright laws are complicated. They are however, there to protect the
artists from exploitation. Think about it. How many artists have produced
a great body of work only to pass on poor. Then after death the speculators
make the money due the artist or his family.
Keep an eye out for the future wave of protection for the artist.
Imagine you are a poor artist. In order to survive you sell your work for
minimum remuneration. As you age you begin to see your work at auction sales,
selling for five to ten times the initial selling price. Imagine being able
to say to the purchaser who pays ten times the first sale price that he must
also give you a percentage of what he just paid for the work. Imagine if this
is the law. There are already some countries with laws such as this. This
will become the way of the future for art.
We as artists are becoming rare in this world of high tech. Our work is one
of a kind. We must protect our rights to the work throughout our life.
What a better way.
Terrance
hal mc whinnie on sat 30 sep 00
what about the current case of the martha graham dance trust.
here is an example of an artist who left no heirs but who wanted her work
saved and maybe selected the wrong trustee.
the trustee of the estate has now forbidden the martha graham dance company
to use any of martha works, this is most certainly the last thing martha
would have wished after her death.
in this case the turust is a self supporting enterprise for one poerson who
had nothing to do with the intitial creations, bettter for martha memopry to
let the world have and use and bult upon her work then to have the dances
now locked away and not produced.
hal
-----Original Message-----
From: ZALT@AOL.COM
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Date: Saturday, September 30, 2000 2:36 AM
Subject: Re: My copyright philosophy
>Hal stated the following:
>
>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.
>
>Wow?
>
>Your philosophy is really outgoing and original. However, I suggest you
>visit the government copyright web site and read up a little so that you
will
>not get your self into trouble some time in the future. Go to this site:
>HREF="http://www.loc.gov/copyright/cords/">U.S. Copyright Office CORDS Page
>
>
>I am not a Lawyer, but some common sense must be foremost when following
>your first philosophical premise.
>
>Copyright is a protection of idea not process. Your first philosophical
>approach is OK, when discussing process. It is not, when discussing Ideas
or
>creations.
>
>You can use the paint mixing methods of dead artists, write using a similar
>pencil as a living artist, use clay mixing methods of other ceramists,
turn
>pots in a manner of other artists in your community. But you cannot take
the
>images or objects and make direct replicas of creations of these artists.
>
>Copyright does not stop you from taking an idea or an image of an artist
>living or dead and reworking the theme, and the visual idea, using a
>freehand hand approach to produce your image or form. If you free hand
copy
>a painting exactly as it appears you would be producing a, "after >dead artists?" image. For example. I can take a paintbrush and freehand
a
>Picasso image. The painting can be almost an exact image, In fact It can
>even be good enough to fool experts. However, I put my name at the bottom
of
>the painting not Picasso's. and I refer this painting as "the title, after
>Picasso".
>
>This is where your second philosophical idea misses. I can characterise
the
>image of an artist in any way or manner as I wish. I can completely change
>the colour and form. I can rework it many times and still convey a very
poor
>interpretation of the idea or image. I can even show the image on my
canvas
>as defaced and torn. When I do this, the artwork will be called "Terry's
>version of John Doe's, ANGEL"
>
>If I can, somehow, take a picture of a Picasso canvas, and use the photo
in
>an exhibition without permission or licence from the estate caring for the
>copyright, I will have broken a copyright law.
>
>The difference of the two are as follows:
>
>In the first case, I reprocessed the image using my own style, using my own
>body movement and intellectual thought.
>
>In the second case I reproduced the image using a direct copying method.
>
>In some countries, taking a photo of a person walking down the road, is
>considered to be stealing their spirit.
>
>Taking a photo or photo copying someone's art is also considered stealing
the
>thoughts of the creator.
>
>I can add that if I keep the photo for my personal use and never use it to
>gain recognition or monetary benefit, there is no problem.
>
>Taking that picture of someone walking down the road, even for personal
use,
>could get you stoned and I don't mean with alcohol.
>
>As for the right to benefit from the art created by artists long gone.
That
>is why we must work to improve our copyrights. Not only when we are alive
>but when we are gone. Lets face it, we create because we want our
creative
>ideas to be accepted by the public, to be remembered by our peers and our
>families. That is one of the benefits of doing art. We want people to
>question our reason, That is why we question ourselves. We want people to
>recognise our work as a statement our life. We want them to research our
>existence so that others can learn from our time on this earth. And if we
>become a widely recognised artist during our life time, what better way is
>there, than having someone designated to keep our rights into the future
>after our departure. To keep the future alive with our creations we will
>require finances and this can be done through copyright protection.
>
>For what it is worth.
>PS. I expect some expertise flack from this.
>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.
ZALT@AOL.COM on sat 30 sep 00
Hal:
One would have to know why the trustee did not allow the dance company to use
the works. Even then the dance company can do a variation on the dead
persons theme.
Normally the licence to use a copyright is attached to money the right of the
trustee to choose what vehicle best conveys the work of the original art.
Terry
hal mc whinnie on sat 30 sep 00
there was a bitter fight gbetween the trustee of the grapham foundation and
the staff of the graham dance company.
questions about rights to use the dances, and how they would be done
the trustee wanted absolute control over everything
the company has closed and in essence no one will use the grapham dances no
mattrer how much they are willing to pay.
this is only one example of the kinds of abuse that the copywight laws
permit.
i do not believe that the term intellectual property is either correct or
possibel.
this is a comkbination of two different things, one ideas and the second
property and I dont believe the combination of the two terms is justified
philosophy
in other wrods intellectual property is impossibele
-----Original Message-----
From: ZALT@AOL.COM
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Date: Saturday, September 30, 2000 4:54 PM
Subject: Re: My copyright philosophy
>Hal:
>
>One would have to know why the trustee did not allow the dance company to
use
>the works. Even then the dance company can do a variation on the dead
>persons theme.
>
>Normally the licence to use a copyright is attached to money the right of
the
>trustee to choose what vehicle best conveys the work of the original art.
>
>Terry
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
___
>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 sun 1 oct 00
----- Original Message -----
From: "hal mc whinnie" <
>
> i do not believe that the term intellectual property is either correct or
> possibel.
> this is a comkbination of two different things, one ideas and the second
> property and I dont believe the combination of the two terms is justified
> philosophy
> in other wrods intellectual property is impossibele
>
I which case authors must all seek some other source of income, and write
only that which they wish to give away for free. BTW, purchasing books,
instead of just taking them, is an acknowledgment of intellectual property
rights. (Although, I grant, your argument would require that you at least
pay for the materials used.)
The concept of intellectual property rights may at times be abused, but it
is also that concept that allows an artist, a composer, or a writer, to make
a living from their work. Do you argue that the originator has no right to
expect to be paid for their labors, whether physical or mental? Why should
a business consultant get paid for analyzing a business's problems and
offering solutions (mental labor) and an artist not deserve the same
compensation?
I agree that it sounds as though the trustee(s) of the Graham foundation are
not living up to the intent of Martha Graham, but generalizing a minimally
occurring event in order to justify ignoring a concept that artists and
authors have fought hard to gain simply is not convincing.
Being able to produce and be paid for one's own creativity helps free the
artist from being dependent upon patrons; with dependence comes loss of
individual creative freedom. I, for one, prefer the not perfect system we
have to returning to a far less system that copyright law has enabled
artists to replace!
- Chris
hal mc whinnie on sun 1 oct 00
i am upset because what has happened is the last thing that martha graham
would have wished.
she left no heirs, and lafte in her life, she was over 90 years old a much
younger man convinced her to leave all the rights to the dances to a trust
which was administered by him.
much like what happened with georgia o keefee who when she was 84 took a
young potter into her home to work for her and after her death he had
enverythinbg. fortunately o keefee had relatives who were able to overturn
the will and most of her work are now in a museumn in sante fee.
these are some of teh abuses i see in this whole issue.
my7 argument is to remove all teh materaialsim from the issue.
-----Original Message-----
From: ZALT@AOL.COM
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Date: Sunday, October 01, 2000 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: My copyright philosophy
>Hal:
>
>You seem very upset about this subject. You must have been close to the
>dance company. I can see you disappointed that the trustee failed to allow
>the licence of the choreography. There is one consolation. There is a
>limit of time that the copyright can be withheld from the public. The time
>will pass.
>
>I assume that the company that closed was the dance company. If this is
so,
>then there are other dance companies. They may approach the trustee and
try
>to negotiate the licence. I am sure the trustees in this case just wish to
>ensure the dances are choreographed exactly to the wishes of Graham. In
>other words they are protecting the rights of the original artist.
>
>Copyright laws are complicated. They are however, there to protect the
>artists from exploitation. Think about it. How many artists have
produced
>a great body of work only to pass on poor. Then after death the
speculators
>make the money due the artist or his family.
>
>Keep an eye out for the future wave of protection for the artist.
>Imagine you are a poor artist. In order to survive you sell your work for
>minimum remuneration. As you age you begin to see your work at auction
sales,
>selling for five to ten times the initial selling price. Imagine being
able
>to say to the purchaser who pays ten times the first sale price that he
must
>also give you a percentage of what he just paid for the work. Imagine if
this
>is the law. There are already some countries with laws such as this. This
>will become the way of the future for art.
>
> We as artists are becoming rare in this world of high tech. Our work is
one
>of a kind. We must protect our rights to the work throughout our life.
>What a better way.
>
>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.
Christopher Anton on sun 1 oct 00
----- Original Message -----
From: "hal mc whinnie" .
> i am upset because what has happened is the last thing that martha graham
> would have wished.
>
> she left no heirs, and lafte in her life, she was over 90 years old a much
> younger man convinced her to leave all the rights to the dances to a trust
> which was administered by him.
>
..>
..> my7 argument is to remove all teh materaialsim from the issue.
>
>
I certainly understand the upset in this case. Unfortunately, the only real
way to remove materialism from the issue is to completely restructure our
society into one that shares openly with no thought of personal gain. So
far this has been unachieved both by the Socialists/Communists and the
Christians.
Meanwhile, I hope that those who are interested in the Martha Graham issue
will band together. Legal action can be taken to ensure that a trust meets
its obligations. The charter for the trust should be publicly available in
which ever state granted it. Depending on how the trust was structured, it
might be possible to force a removal of the current director and one more
willing and able to administer the trust according to Ms. Graham's wishes
appointed.
The system does have problems, but often the quickest and most effective
solution also lies within the system if we will but use it.
Hopefully, the dance companies who wish to use Martha's choreography will
band together and use the legal system to force what sounds to be a much
needed change.
- Chris
| |
|
