Today is not yesterday, and yesterday is not today. – Me.
One of these days I’m going to have to get into my complicated feelings about copyright in relation to creative practice because there are many ways to look at it – intellectual property, that is. The art world has always come categorically down against it, out of principle, insisting all appropriation is legitimate. I don’t disagree, but the more I think about it, the more I feel compassion for Patrick Cariou (regarding that whole Richard Prince lawsuit. I’m all for fair use, but there’s also acknowledgment and respect. If someone took an essay or short story I wrote and redacted every 3rd paragraph, inserting their own text, and wanted to call it an independent work of their own, fine, but not to acknowledge the source, especially when you might be in a position to help someone less well-off/known, I’m sorry, its not the same taking a corporate logo or an ad. It seems that image makers appear to disregard one another in a way writers and musicians are less prone to do, intellectual property in both those arenas being much more contested by artists. Anyway maybe there’s some just distinction I’m missing, which is why I’d love to have a more nuanced discussion about the issue:) One that expands beyond the crude terms put forth by the laws that are obviously far behind the times.
I happened to talk to a friend who is hiring an intellectual property lawyer and she informed me that they are very niche still, and generally specialize in software lawsuits ala this recent case, which I came across by randomly googling “the most contested intellectual copyright case”. And do you remember the scandal over the British bus art? Oh the times they are a’change-in’…And here’s oneto show you how ridiculous and greedy those who hold copyright can be!
Erich Heckel, Fränzi with Doll, 1910
