[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: copyright-- Bruce vs.Pam
- To: Multiple recipients of list BOOK_ARTS-L <BOOK_ARTS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: copyright-- Bruce vs.Pam
- From: Charles Alexander <chax@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 14:27:03 -0500
- Message-id: <199605181932.PAA05116@listserv.syr.edu>
- Sender: "The Book Arts: binding, typography, collecting" <BOOK_ARTS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>One more thing: Bruce wrote:
> The ART_BOOK forum appears to be mainly a group of nice,
> educated and basically honest people preoccupied with theft,
> a subject about which they frankly appear to have had very
> limited hands-on experience; except for maybe a little software.
>Talk about a condescending, ignorant (not "pro-ignorant") and insulting
>position! His head isn't in the sand-- it's up his ass.
Bravo to Richard for saying this.
I once was driving down a major street in Tucson, Arizona, looked up and saw
a billboard advertising a local magazine. The billboard's major feature was
a painting by my wife. She hadn't known about the billboard, there was no
attribution to her. The magazine had earlier paid her for the right to use
her work on its cover, but for nothing else. I called her. She called them.
They paid her some money. But they were clearly embarrassed and knowingly in
Copyright infringements happen all the time, to book artists & artists of
all kinds. It is an important issue, and those who wish to talk about it
should not be insulted. Clearly Bruce feels the need to insult us. I wonder why.