...Deliberate Provocation !!

[tad]

Greetings All,
I seldom post my Xara images because they are often 18meg or at least 3meg, so I've decided to do something different. I am posting an image to be provocative.

It is an image of an INDIAN.... (Oh No! He shouldn't)
Relax Kemosabe, this is not about race, color, national origin, sexual preference, gender, kingdom, phylum, genus or species. Besides, I'm Cherokee, voting member of the tribe. I get ancestral dispensation.

This has been brought on by many weeks of thinking about the posts of Ross Macintosh. This is about COPYRIGHT. Now let me say that I think Ross has done a terrific thing in bringing together imagery of Xarans and the Molecular Expressions people. In fact, Ross has exercised "due diligence" in getting permission and seeing that credit is ALWAYS given. Commendable, commendable. I, however, have done something a bit more toward the precipice. And, I'm doing it deliberately.

I have scanned a postcard which I purchased. It was a photo of an Indian, taken by OS Goff in 1874. I say "was" because I lost the postcard and don't know in which collection it resides, or whether the little circle c is on the back. I then turned it into a "work" through the magic of digital manipulation . This brings up a few QUESTIONS :
1) Have I read "Electronic Highway Robbery",[Mary E. Carter, Peachpit Press] ? ... YES. Excellent book! Makes you think - go read it.
2) Do I now know enough to realize when I am in serious violation of copyright law? ... NO. The law changes daily. Research is always needed. Sometimes expensive advice.
3) Since I claim I have done this for educational purposes (forums ARE educational, really) can I use the education exemption of "fair use"? ... PERHAPS. But the internet is rather a public place, not a classroom.
4) Since I changed it a lot, do I meet other fair use criteria? Well,,, Ah, let's stop and get to the point.
5) Do I think I will be sued? ... NO. Why? NO MONEY !! Copyright is about MONEY. But there are more lawyers than artists, so I could be rudely surprised to the tune of about $20,000. (even if I prevail)
You may well ask: "What is provocative about a copyright lecture?" - Nothing. This is just the set up.

NOW - How much of the Molecular Expressions imagery do YOU fell comfortable using in YOUR artwork? Is there a line where the image contains so much of "Their" work, that you don't feel good about signing your name? ? ? ? Well, I can't answer for YOU, so I'll speak about MY feelings and the Indian.

A) Do I feel that my work is a "genuine and sincere creative exploration"? ABSOLUTELY! In fact, it says a lot about how I feel regarding the treatment and fate of Indians past and PRESENT.
B) Would I feel comfortable signing it? NOT GOING TO ANSWER. I'm more interested in what YOU think. This post is about ethics.

So,,,, tired of too much "happy talk" on the forum? Here is your chance. Think I'm a rotten hairball for doing such a thing? Say so. You can call me a "traitorous Redskin". Hey, you can call me a taxi. But, please, don't call me a "Native American". I hate that term. Everyone born in Canada, Mexico, Nicaragua, et. al., or TEXAS is a Native American. And, contrary to the view of many of our legislators, America is not within the borders of the US of A. .... Stay tuned. Will Mary realize that I have taken her words out of context for my own devious means? Will she pressure Gary to disappear me like a vanishing Trotsky? This could be the shortest lived post in Xara history.

Your friendly savage ,,Tad. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

[tad]

Greetings All,
I seldom post my Xara images because they are often 18meg or at least 3meg, so I've decided to do something different. I am posting an image to be provocative.

It is an image of an INDIAN.... (Oh No! He shouldn't)
Relax Kemosabe, this is not about race, color, national origin, sexual preference, gender, kingdom, phylum, genus or species. Besides, I'm Cherokee, voting member of the tribe. I get ancestral dispensation.

This has been brought on by many weeks of thinking about the posts of Ross Macintosh. This is about COPYRIGHT. Now let me say that I think Ross has done a terrific thing in bringing together imagery of Xarans and the Molecular Expressions people. In fact, Ross has exercised "due diligence" in getting permission and seeing that credit is ALWAYS given. Commendable, commendable. I, however, have done something a bit more toward the precipice. And, I'm doing it deliberately.

I have scanned a postcard which I purchased. It was a photo of an Indian, taken by OS Goff in 1874. I say "was" because I lost the postcard and don't know in which collection it resides, or whether the little circle c is on the back. I then turned it into a "work" through the magic of digital manipulation . This brings up a few QUESTIONS :
1) Have I read "Electronic Highway Robbery",[Mary E. Carter, Peachpit Press] ? ... YES. Excellent book! Makes you think - go read it.
2) Do I now know enough to realize when I am in serious violation of copyright law? ... NO. The law changes daily. Research is always needed. Sometimes expensive advice.
3) Since I claim I have done this for educational purposes (forums ARE educational, really) can I use the education exemption of "fair use"? ... PERHAPS. But the internet is rather a public place, not a classroom.
4) Since I changed it a lot, do I meet other fair use criteria? Well,,, Ah, let's stop and get to the point.
5) Do I think I will be sued? ... NO. Why? NO MONEY !! Copyright is about MONEY. But there are more lawyers than artists, so I could be rudely surprised to the tune of about $20,000. (even if I prevail)
You may well ask: "What is provocative about a copyright lecture?" - Nothing. This is just the set up.

NOW - How much of the Molecular Expressions imagery do YOU fell comfortable using in YOUR artwork? Is there a line where the image contains so much of "Their" work, that you don't feel good about signing your name? ? ? ? Well, I can't answer for YOU, so I'll speak about MY feelings and the Indian.

A) Do I feel that my work is a "genuine and sincere creative exploration"? ABSOLUTELY! In fact, it says a lot about how I feel regarding the treatment and fate of Indians past and PRESENT.
B) Would I feel comfortable signing it? NOT GOING TO ANSWER. I'm more interested in what YOU think. This post is about ethics.

So,,,, tired of too much "happy talk" on the forum? Here is your chance. Think I'm a rotten hairball for doing such a thing? Say so. You can call me a "traitorous Redskin". Hey, you can call me a taxi. But, please, don't call me a "Native American". I hate that term. Everyone born in Canada, Mexico, Nicaragua, et. al., or TEXAS is a Native American. And, contrary to the view of many of our legislators, America is not within the borders of the US of A. .... Stay tuned. Will Mary realize that I have taken her words out of context for my own devious means? Will she pressure Gary to disappear me like a vanishing Trotsky? This could be the shortest lived post in Xara history.

Your friendly savage ,,Tad. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

[Ross Macintosh]

Interesting derivative work Tad.

1874 you say. Hmm? Do copyrights extend forever? Even if they don't and there is no legal requirements associated with the image - certainly there are moral rights that don't expire. It would not be right for instance to not recognize this as a derivative work. You owe the original photographer at least that much. What I find interesting is how do those moral rights get acknowledged. That isn't easy.

You make reference to your Indian ancestral dispensation. I wonder how that relates to the 1874 image. Because the subject matter was Indian does that extend some sort of special rights to use the old image? Traditionally the photographer is the artist whose rights we concern ourselves with - very little concern or thought is given to the rights of the model. Perhaps the model signed a waver? [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]

Thanks Tad for giving us something interesting to think about.

Regards, Ross

<a href=http://www.designstop.com/>DesignStop.Com</a>

[Egg Bramhill]

I've no clue to the answer here, but heres my contribution.
If I was a stone mason and made a statue of a indian, would I hold a copyright of that statue?
If the statue was placed in the town centre and a photographer wandered along, photographed it and created a postcard of the statue, would the photographer hold a copyright of the photograph?
Would the photographer be in breach of the stone masons copyright ?
If a graphic artist came across the postcard, scanned it in and digitally ammended the photograph to a considerable extent, would the graphic artist hold a copyright on this image.
Would the graphic artist be in breach of the photographers copyright ?
Would the graphic artist be in breach of the stone masons copyright ?

I only ask, as it appears to me that a photographer can photograph anything in the public domain and not be in breach of copyright. (Perhaps because he is transfering it to a different medium.) But is'nt the graphic artist, by scanning and digitally manipulating the image also transfering this to a different medium?

I'm sure someone in the forum will have the answer to all of the points raised.

Egg

[Turan]

Maybe I'm avoiding the subject, but as we are all artists (or budding ones anyway) why copy a thing?

Copyright laws are for those that either can't or don't want to draw. And thus it is there to protect the artist that can and want to draw.

The moral regardless of legal question is. Are you finacially gaining by cutting and pasting something someone else has spent time and effort producing without giving them a finacial recognition for that time and effort (or giving them the right to decline such payment)?

Turan

[Turan]

Not sure about the stone massons claim against the photographer.

But the photographer took his picture from a certain angle and in a certain light. This is the photographers skill. To scan that is to gain from that skill.

As far as:
" as it appears to me that a photographer can photograph anything in the public domain and not be in breach of copyright."

I think your wrong there. My wife collects those miniture reproductions of houses 'Lilliput Lane' collection. They once invited their collectors to take a photo of a house they liked with a very to it becoming part of the miniture collection. But they warned that unless the house was over 100years old you would need permission (I think from the designer). Hence when you look at the collection most if not all are of ye-old houses.

Turan

[cleggart]

..there is very good info at the United States Library of Congress.

Things have changed favorably for the artist. Someone asked if he made a statue of stone etc.is it copyrighted. After the Berne Convention in 1989 the answer if YES. Anything created by the artist at the time he/she puts her Signature on it, it is Copyrighted. Thus, all persons should understand that any work is 'copyrighted' with the artist's signature and it should be respected as such.

I have an on-going law suite because someone used my work and in doing so has 'mutilated' it. Too,bad!

Thanks for info,all.

walk softly at the edges. bill [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]

[Wolfgang]

It's pretty easy:

The "Urheberrecht" ('right of creator', see below) keeps until 70 years past the artist's death.

So, if the photographer died before 1931, it's perfectly legal to use his work, free of charge.
That's also the reason, why you mostly can buy CDs with classical music real cheap. There are no more royalties for the composer (or his successors). You only have to pay royalties to the orchestra performing it (+ production, handling, marketing etc.).

So, depending on the age at which the photographer took the picture he could very well have died past 1931. Chances are though, that he died earlier.

Anyway, I guess this is not the point here. Tad transformed the picture into a new work of art and used it - with proper credits - for non-commercial purpose in an educational manner. So he's save anyway.
Remark: If this were a lawsuit, a referee would have to expertise if it really IS a NEW work of art ..)

Gary's wife could really tell you more about copyright and it's relation to the European version, the "Urheberrecht" (right of creator" and the "Nutzungsrecht" (right to use it). But as far as I know, the 70 years rule applies in the US as well.

Wolfgang

Fun fact about "Indians" (the word):
In German, we have different words for "American Indians", which is "Indianer" and "Indian Indians", which is "Inder". So we never can mix them up and none of them is degrading or politically incorrect.
So Winnetou is always an "Indianer" for us, and never a "Native American" [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]

[RTK]

... this copyright stuff. Tad's postcard *could* still be under copyright if the image has been "improved" (contrast/hue/scratches...) from the original. And 500 year old painting might not be copyrighted anymore but the photo depicting it could be.

I could consider using copyrighted material in my work if the end result made the borrowed image/idea totally and utterly unrecognizable.

My line would be recognizable/NOT in a million years recognizable.

I think that the odds of being sued increases with each dollar you make with a borrowed/stolen image. Tad, if your image would become a huge selling item you would for sure find out if you broke any copyright laws [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

The link is to the US patent office (basic copyright information):
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ1.html

Risto

diri@videotron.ca

[tad]

Bill made an interesting statement:<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I have an on-going law suite because someone used my work and in doing so has 'mutilated' it. Too,bad! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Bill, I assume you meant artistically mutilated, rather than hacked it with an ax (THAT can be illegal in California, even if you bought the piece). And I won't ask for details because it is NEVER good to discuss a lawsuit. BUT, BUT, BUT:

ETHICALLY, did I mutilate the indian?
And I ask again, at what point do you feel a derivative work is no longer yours?
Coryright can be determined by law.
Artistic integrity can be determined by us.

Your friendly savage,,,Tad. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]