[Table of Contents] [Search]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[BKARTS] unfair use?

The reduction to absurdity that underlies the position that art is
created 'ex- nihlo' is exposed by our ability to know exactly what we
mean. The problem is that understanding a language, even an artistic
one, is insufficient. We must have negotiable means to use the language
through which understanding is transmitted or that language atrophies.
Because no one needs permission to understand the language they are
situated in it is permission itself that becomes, simply, that which
needs to be negotiated and 'grasped.' Knowing when we're infringing on
private languages and symbols is never easy; can I talk about Mickey
Mouse after my vacation is over- can I write about him in a hand made
book I intend to distribute as a gift to my family? The list
demonstrates to me that legislation currently is going entirely the
wrong way because most lawyers are deaf to the old distinction between
'mention' and 'use' preferring to register medium rather than message
and ownership over intent. Perhaps someone on the list can describe the
legal continuum of permissiveness towards corporately owned brands and
images as they relate to their use in the construction of hand made and
coterie published art objects?

I would love to know what the law says.

Chris Chapman

-----Original Message-----
From: Book_Arts-L [mailto:BOOK_ARTS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Bertha Rogers
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2003 6:30 AM
To: BOOK_ARTS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: fair use ... another view ...

It doesn't matter about the powerful corporate lawyers. What matters is
that you'd be
using the art that another person created without getting permission and
without paying
for that right. We can talk around the subject all day, but it's really
pretty simple. If
people grasped the simplicity and did the right thing there'd be no need
for those
powerful corporate lawyers.
Bertha Rogers

On 19 Apr 2003 at 22:21, LAURIE MULLIKIN wrote:

> There are widely differing views on this subject and I resisted
jumping in because I know this will offend some here ...
> I say use good judgment and "best effort" to get clearances ...
remembering the original intent of copyright law and the fact that it's
a lot easier to ask forgiveness than permission. With that guideline, I
can't imagine book artists here getting in real trouble on copyright
> Part of the growing difficulty and confusion on "fair use" is due to
powerful corporate lawyers and lobbyists who are litigating and revising
copyright law for corporate commercial interests ... stifling the free
exchange of ideas while providing little or no protection to original
> From: http://www.illegal-art.org./   (a parody of licensing agreements
and challenge to corporate "asset protection") ... "The laws governing
"intellectual property" have grown so expansive in recent years that
artists need legal experts to sort them all out. Borrowing from another
jazz musicians did in the 1930s and Looney Tunes illustrators did in
1940s--will now land you in court. If the current copyright laws had
been in effect back in the day, whole genres such as collage, hiphop,
and Pop Art might never have existed.  The irony here couldn't be more
stark. Rooted in
the U.S. Constitution, copyright was originally intended to facilitate
the exchange of ideas but is now being used to stifle it" For more, see
other groups working on these copyright issues:
> There's also a term coined by wordsmith, Paul McFedries ...
"copyrighteous": adj. Relating to a feeling of moral superiority based
on one's responsible copyright views and actions.
> Laurie

            BOOK_ARTS-L: The listserv for all the book arts.
      For subscription information, the Archive, and other related
            resources and links go to the Book_Arts-L FAQ at:

        Archive maintained and suppported by Conservation OnLine

[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents] [Search]