[Table of Contents] [Search]


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

Re: [BKARTS] Unfair use



Thanks! That's really useful to know.
Best,
Chris.

-----Original Message-----
From: Book_Arts-L [mailto:BOOK_ARTS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Gerald Lange
Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2003 2:21 PM
To: BOOK_ARTS-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Unfair use

Chris

Copyright protects intellectual and creative property. A good thing,
yes? The rationale is that it fosters intellectual and creative
activity, not that it hinders them. If folks need to steal other
people's property to be creative, what does this say about them?
Copyright protects the sequence of the symbols and the icons not the
ideas represented by them. The protection afforded Mickey Mouse is one
of trademark, not copyright, you can talk about Mickey all you want, you
just can't reproduce the icon. The repression of language or of the
expression of ideas, has nothing to do with these laws. Copyright
protects only the exact sequencing, or rendering, of the way the idea is
presented.

Gerald

>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

             ***********************************************
            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:
                      <http://www.philobiblon.com>

        Archive maintained and suppported by Conservation OnLine
                    <http://palimpsest.stanford.edu>
             ***********************************************

             ***********************************************
            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:
                      <http://www.philobiblon.com>

        Archive maintained and suppported by Conservation OnLine
                    <http://palimpsest.stanford.edu>
             ***********************************************


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