...Deliberate Provocation !!

[Eric]

My goodness, what a minefield! It's enough to put anybody off anything!

eric

[Ross Macintosh]

When Marcel Dechamp in 1917 submitted a signed common urinal to the New York "Independants Show" he was claiming it was art because he said it was. Of course he was trying to be contraversial. The artist decides if it is art.

Framing a piece of raw canvas, signing it, calling it "Raw Canvas #12", and putting a $12,000 price tag on it - is all in a day's work for some artists. Their claim that it is art of course doesn't make it good art! Now if any of us did exactly the same thing, then as Valery suggests, we would be violating the 'original' artist's rights. Yet I don't know if it would stand up in court. The idea of a jury of your peers - fundamental to western justice - does not mean the jury will be fellow artists but citizens chosen to represent 'the reasonable man'. We all know how unreasonable these 'reasonable' people can be!

Regards, Ross

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

[Eric]

now who amongst us has a wealth of MP3 files, I have, there are thousands in my collections, since my teens I must have paid literally £housands to the music industry.
You?

same copyright

[tad]

Eric,
You know better.
I'm sure Wild Bill wouldn't be involved in litigation if someone had merely nabbed one of his images and LOOKED at it. The music legal and ETHICAL issues are different.

HOWEVER, by bringing up music, you approach the heart of the issue. How much music can you sample and still call it YOUR music?

Likewise, how much image can we "derivate" and still call it OUR art?

Big issue. Some say NONE! Some say "credit where credit is due". Some say "information wants to be free". (If Mary Carter doesn't nail me on that quote, I bet Gary will)

Regards,,,Tad.. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

[Eric]

"How much music can you sample and still call it YOUR music?"
apparently none!
but downloading and sharingmanipulating music is just the same moral & legal quagmire is'nt it...?

"The music legal and ETHICAL issues are different."
how so?

eric [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif[/img]

[tad]

I've been thinking of US law. Perhaps in th UK music and visual arts are treated the same.

But here in the USofA the case law has been different. Likely, the suits will correct me, but I think the way it works is that vague laws are enacted, then specific cases determine the law in reality. Plus individual states have their own laws.

For example: in the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, If I purchase one of your paintings and throw it in the trash, you have grounds for litigation. Likewise, if I purchase one of your paintings, slash it with a knife to make an "artistic statement" and hang it back on the wall, you have grounds for litigation.

What bothers me about ALL OF THIS is that I fear some of the major art "movements" would now be illegal.

Can I draw a mustache on a portrait of Mona Macintosh? Not likely. Can I slice up my copy of Studio Techniques, make and sell a collage titled Homage d'Priester e Huss ? Well maybe, depends on Gary's payoff. But I am fairly certain that painting a picture of a soup can is a no no.

It's getting rather depressing. I request that the moderators lock this discussion, and let's go back to making pretty pictures.

Rgds,,,Tad.

[Ross Macintosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I request that the moderators lock this discussion <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We need that seconded and thirded. This has been an interesting thread. (ie we don't need 2nd & 3rd's for all threads [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img] ).

In that California law can you just be sued or can you get jail time? I can imagine many artists don't like such laws and yet presumably it is for their protection.

Regards, Ross

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

[tad]

No seconds or thirds? Well, here is something that might stick in your craw:

This image is a derivative work. It uses an image copyrighted by Michael W. Davidson and The Florida State University and is used with permission.

NOW, surely EVERYONE agrees that this would be unethical. Of course, if Louie The Lizard paid to use the lysine image, it would not be illegal . That's not the point. The point is that this is hardly an image that Louie could claim as "HIS".

So,,,,, where do YOU draw the line? How much "derivation" do you consider ethical. Forget copyright for a bit. Let us speak of Ethics, Thievery, Surrealism, Dada and artistic behavior that, for lack of a better word, I will call "sampling ". Musicians do it all the time. And for those of you in the UK, I believe it was Ralph Vaughan Williams who said: "Everyone steals. I just choose to steal from English folk music."

Hello,,,,, hello,,,, anybody home ???
Forget jail Ross, they just want the cash.

Rgds....Tad.

[Ross Macintosh]

Excuse me Tad for being a little dense - When you say "they just want cash" who are you refering to? There are often multiple players involved.

Regards, Ross

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

[Vectormonkey (formerly, Borlip)]

Is it my work of art? What if I draw a picture of a tree? What if I draw a picture of drawing of a tree? or a drawing of a photo of a tree?
If my drawing is bad, can I claim it as mine just because it doesn't look like the original due to my lack of talent? If I can drw or paint so well as to make a piece look identical to a photo of a tree, have I then stolen the photographer's art? If not, what if I claim a scanner to be my artistic tool?

I don't think that we can answer all the possible questions legalistically. However, we should have fellow feeling and try to hold onto a bit of artistic integrity. Or maybe integrity be it artistic or not.

Or something like that...

~Dave!~