Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Hi Edward , I don`t think collage techniques could be regarded as theft , because you are not stealing/using the product but the IMAGE of it. You are using pictures of it. Or in the case of that torched Mac-keyboard , Mac`s product lies in the performance of the machine the technology , the reliability etc. That artist wasn`t using Macintosh to boost his own similar product. At least thats what I think......... Yours , Thomas Feel free to check out my web-site: http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/Promenade/1628/ > > >What do y'all think about visual artists who use collage-type techniques >in >their work? For example artists (whose names I won't list here) who use >commercial advertisements, national icons, media characters, brand names, >etc... as part of a mixed media painting? Or sculpture (I recall one >friend who nailed a mangled MacIntosh keyboard into a piece of sculpture >and burned it and then exhibited the remains)? Would that person be >obligated to ask Apple for permission? I'd think that that's a rare (if >ever) occurrence. Is there 'theft of image' here? > > > > >Kim Flint <kflint@chromatic.com> on 08/26/98 03:53:28 AM > >Please respond to Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com > >To: Loopers-Delight@annihilist.com >cc: (bcc: Edward Chang/AMS/AMSINC) >Subject: Re: Fwd: FNV-RIAA IS CRACKING DOWN > > > > >At 01:37 AM 8/26/98 -0500, mark sottilaro wrote: >>As a creator of original music I find nothing wrong with this at all. >> > >I used that argument in 1986, and I have not granted you permission to use >it. You will be hearing from my crack legal team shortly! > > >But really, I think you would have a difficult time arguing that the >zillions of recordings being made in the numerous collage-based genres, >using samples, are all unoriginal. Negativland makes a very good point >about >the Fair Use principles of copyright law, and the rights granted therein. >Fair Use has always been a part of the law, but there are not many >precedent >cases available to define it very well. So the situation is a bit vague, >there aren't any solid legal guidelines to follow, and now advances in >digital media are pushing the issue to a head. I would imagine that with >big >record companies and the RIAA aggressively threatening people with >lawsuits >to make them give up their fair use rights, it won't be long before we see >more of this being tried in the courts. > >Anyway, Negativland convinced me of all this several years ago. They have >been making the fair use case quite eloquently for many, many years, and >I'd >suggest checking out what they have to say before making reactionary >statements. Most people don't have a very good grasp on what copyright law >is all about, even when they think they do (like confusing copyright with >property rights), and even fewer know what Fair Use is. It's a worthwhile >thing to learn, rather than assume.... > >Negativland is also a really cool experimental-noise-found sound music >group, not to mention master media artists. Nobody writes press releases >as >well as they do! they've turned this whole Fair Use crusade into a media >art >project in and of itself, which is quite fun to follow. Their book "Fair >Use: the Story of the Letter U and the Numeral 2" is geat, chronicling >their >experiences getting almost sued off the planet by U2, Casey Casem, and >Island Records, because of a sample on a record. (you might never get to >hear the original version, but the song is extremely funny....) Of course >that is the same U2 that samples local news broadcasts and tv shows during >their stadium concerts, and manipulates them on their giant video screen, >without seeking permission from the local tv stations. Apparently their >lawyers lack the gene for Irony. > >Negativland is here, they can speak for themselves just fine: >http://www.negativland.com/ > >kim >_________________________________________________________ >Kim Flint, MTS kflint@chromatic.com >Chromatic Research 408-752-9284 >http://www.chromatic.com > > > > > > >