Notes on life, art, photography and technology, by a Danish dropout bohemian.
When you drink the water, remember the river.
▼
Sunday, December 09, 2007
Copyright willies
I don't get copyright. If you include a painting or something in a photo or a film, it's a copyright break, but apparently you can take a photograph of a another photograph and sell it for big bucks in the fine art world, and that's fully legal??
It's like how in writing if you steal another's words you're in big trouble, but in movies one filmmaker can openly and shamelessly steal from another filmmaker and it's perfectly legal.
By the way, reading copyright law always makes me go a big rubbery one.
As a teen I collected a scrap book of good photos from magazines. A lot of these included the Benson and Hedges 100 ad's. I can see merit and appeal in Malboro and Camel ad's too. There are many ads where it is the graphic designers blend of stock photos, commissioned art and graphics that build a good ad, and there are times when it is the raw image. Remember the Esso tiger photos of the '80's?
When the Ad agency finally sells these works to poster manufacturers who gets the money and recognition then? What about reproduction enameled adverts?
A photo which, for example, incorporates a Fanta truck in some remote 3rd world location, is making a statement using the trademark image.
But a selective enlargement, isn't that just copying? To use that for an exhibition to illustrate skills and worth is fair usage, but to turn around and sell that image is plagiarism, surely?
Every piece of code I read has copyright stated there in the header. But you look at it, and you see some things which are just how it is done, no scope for creativity, you have to load the data before you enable the output, right! The code actually follows the appnote. So why the copyright? Somethings can't be copyrighted.
A vanilla photo of the Arc De Triumph, does that merit copyright? A long exposure of a night time Arc De Triumph, with star defractor and amber filter? Yes, probably.
Hmm, so in my rambling I wanted to say that Mr Prince seems to be in the wrong. However, did Krantz's not recognizing his own work as Art , and not distributing it as such beyond the Marlboro project, free up Prince to adopt it himself?
How must the person who created the smiley face feel? Did they cash in on the universal success?
I'm not sure I believe he was the smiley face creator, nor was he the first person to have a coke head girlfriend die of AIDS. Though it was a fun story.
Reminds me of the old joke with the hunter being asked if he shot the stag in the Trussocks, and the hunter replying he shot it between the eyes.
ILM did a great job with the FX in that movie. I want to work for ILM, or Pixar.
It's like how in writing if you steal another's words you're in big trouble, but in movies one filmmaker can openly and shamelessly steal from another filmmaker and it's perfectly legal.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, reading copyright law always makes me go a big rubbery one.
Joe Dick, I think you stole that last line.
ReplyDeleteAs a teen I collected a scrap book of good photos from magazines. A lot of these included the Benson and Hedges 100 ad's. I can see merit and appeal in Malboro and Camel ad's too. There are many ads where it is the graphic designers blend of stock photos, commissioned art and graphics that build a good ad, and there are times when it is the raw image. Remember the Esso tiger photos of the '80's?
ReplyDeleteWhen the Ad agency finally sells these works to poster manufacturers who gets the money and recognition then? What about reproduction enameled adverts?
A photo which, for example, incorporates a Fanta truck in some remote 3rd world location, is making a statement using the trademark image.
But a selective enlargement, isn't that just copying? To use that for an exhibition to illustrate skills and worth is fair usage, but to turn around and sell that image is plagiarism, surely?
Every piece of code I read has copyright stated there in the header. But you look at it, and you see some things which are just how it is done, no scope for creativity, you have to load the data before you enable the output, right! The code actually follows the appnote. So why the copyright? Somethings can't be copyrighted.
A vanilla photo of the Arc De Triumph, does that merit copyright? A long exposure of a night time Arc De Triumph, with star defractor and amber filter? Yes, probably.
Hmm, so in my rambling I wanted to say that Mr Prince seems to be in the wrong. However, did Krantz's not recognizing his own work as Art , and not distributing it as such beyond the Marlboro project, free up Prince to adopt it himself?
How must the person who created the smiley face feel? Did they cash in on the universal success?
How must the person who created the smiley face feel? Did they cash in on the universal success?
ReplyDeleteForrest Gump has enough money.
I'm not sure I believe he was the smiley face creator, nor was he the first person to have a coke head girlfriend die of AIDS. Though it was a fun story.
ReplyDeleteReminds me of the old joke with the hunter being asked if he shot the stag in the Trussocks, and the hunter replying he shot it between the eyes.
ILM did a great job with the FX in that movie. I want to work for ILM, or Pixar.
Hmmm.. I think its about time I open my internet site. Pics of all the pics from domai, but its ok because I enlarge them .0001% so its all good.
ReplyDeletesigh.
The photographer in the article has a lot more restraint than I would have.
"Forrest Gump has enough money."
ReplyDeleteBesides, shit happens, sometimes.
Wanna see where I was wounded, Mr President? :-D