Michael O'Keefe wrote:
It's no easier to faithfully [copy] a photograph (i.e. to the degree
that the copy has any practical economic value and is not seen as an
obvious fake) than it is a painting or a sculpture.
It doesn't matter, even if it's an obvious fake. There are plenty of
posters around of great paintings and photographs. That's where the
work-for-pay is different for "paper" based art, rather than woodwork
or sculpting. The paper based art is easily reproduced, and the
artist can't "as easily" make money compared to a carpenter or a
sculptor
If a copy of an art object is an obvious fake, then it has no
intrinsic value. And unless it is being passed off as having been
created by the original artist (that's called forgery), it existence
takes no income away from that artist. Those posters are not being
sold as copies of the original, and no one confuses them as such.
You and I have a different definition of "copy" then.
We certainly do. Maybe that's because I come from a pre-digital
generation. Where a publisher might print multiple copies of a book
(which would be all essentially identical), but a painter did not paint
multiple copies of a painting (which though might look similar, would
still all be unique).
I don't particularly care if a "copy" of a book came from a photocopy
machine or an (authorized) publisher.
My objections were to the original, *specific* case of Ansel Adams.
Ansel Adams did not publish books, or paint paintings. Why do you insist
on generalizing from a specific case?
It's still a copy. I cannot
legally wholesale copy a book, painting,
My original point had nothing to do with copying. I objected to the
hypothesis that Ansel Adams was dependent on copyright for his income.
He was not.
I further pointed out that even if that were so, it would have been
nearly (and since he's now dead, is almost certainly) impossible for
someone to produce a photograph from an Adams negative and pass it off
as an original print made my Ansel Adams[1].
photograph (if I have the
negatives since you are so hell bent on making the point about
photography based on silver halide)...
Because, if you had been paying attention, that was the *specific case*
presented by Gus. Ansel Adams only shot black and white film. He only
made black and white prints. B&W film uses silver halide as the light
sensitive medium. Geez, don't computer geeks know that there was a world
of technology that predated the computer!
...without the copyright owners
permission (unless it has passed into the public domain, in which case
we already have permission to copy it - ala people making sketches at
museums)
And you're the one who didn't want to start another discussion on
copyright law! ???
Because there exists a poster of a great painting or photograph says
absolutely nothing about what, if any, financial arrangements may have
been made by or on the behalf of the original artist.
Unless it's an illegal reproduction, an arrangement of some form must
have been made. Even if no money changed hands, it's still an arrangment
(where $=0)
No arrangements need be made if the work is already in the public
domain. But again, you are trying to devolve my original point into a
general case about copyrights, which it was (is) not.
That the artists of those times made little more than a pitiful living
(usually less) had nothing to do with the absence of copyright law
I would argue that it did.
Then I would argue that you bone up on your art history.
If they had protections to control their
works then maybe they might have been paid more ?
It wasn't control they lacked, but money. They needed time for their art
and they needed money to pay for their materials and the basic
necessities of life - just like everyone else. Art was not widely
appreciated by the masses to the degree it is today, but it was by those
who were better educated: the rich. That made the rich the natural
benefactors for the creation of that art, the appreciation of which made
them better (in their eyes) than the uneducated masses.
It was a symbiotic relationship between the artist and the nobleman that
had nothing to do with copying (which was virtually impossible on any
large scale in those times in any case), let alone copyright (which is a
late Euro-American mechanism anyway).
It also prolly has a
lot to do with "art" being the playground of the rich, and they're the
only ones who pay for it. Whereas the "common man" wants to drink beer
and watch TV.
First the word "probably" generally does not belong in a discussion of
history. It implies that you are at best making an educated guess, or at
worst just making stuff up.
Second, art is everyone's playground. Whoever came up with the truism
above didn't know anything about art. Art is the physical manifestation
of innate creativity. No one is privileged in that respect. As it turns
out and for whatever reason, the rich don't generally spend much time
creating art themselves, but they have historically subsidized those who
do. Artists don't generally become wealthy, but will practice their art
under any conditions. I think it's a contrast in priorities. Again, the
economics of art has nothing to do with copyright laws.
Third, you are mixing eras. The common man during the classical age of
art might have been drinking something like beer, but he certainly
wasn't watching TV. But you're right about the average person not being
very appreciative of art, although modern man is much more so for
several reasons. The average man is more broadly educated, art is now
both more prolific and more accessible, and also it's better preserved.
It would be helpful if you would provide evidence, or at least an
example methodology supporting your belief that a carpenter or sculptor
can make more money than someone creating "paper based art" (and please
define paper based art)
</paste>
An old family friend makes guitars (out of wood !)
Another made surfboards (out of fibreglass). Both are artistic (YMMV)
and neither are easily reproduced.
I'm afraid that while you have presented some facts, you haven't used
them in any way which answers either question above. How do you define
"easily"? Have you ever made either guitars, surfboards, or photographs?
That their creation all seem mysteriously difficult to you is no measure
as to how easily they may be copied (that is, that a copy can be made by
a third party so as to be indistinguishable from one made by the artist).
My brother is a script-writer and film-maker. Both of his products are
*easily* reproduced.
A better example. However, you make the fatal error of one not familiar
with the process of art: failing to distinguish the art from the medium.
While the printed manuscript of a screenplay or a copy of a film print
is easy enough to make, your brother's art (the content of of the script
or the film) cannot be so easily be passed off as someone else's work.
We live in an interesting time for certain artists. While the physical
manifestations of some art (film, CD's), still those who do such copying
are still dependent on the artists' creativity. That can't be copied.
And while your brother's film might be copied, it's still his film, and
he has not lost the original - only control over how others may use the
copies.
But then that's the way art has always worked. All artists borrow from
others' work. Nothing is created in a vacuum. Nothing is entirely
original. Everyone is both influenced, and influencer.
"paper based art" is a term I am coining (copyrighting !!) to reflect
art that is usually represented on paper-like-substances. ie. My
brothers films are shown on a screen, made of a paper like substance.
And if grandma had wheels, she'd be a wagon.
The screen is no more a paper like substance than plastic is a glass
like substance. Film is not like paper. Film is like film. The
photograph is not the paper; it need not even be on paper. In fact,
photographs were originally made on metal. Paper is like paper. Again,
you confuse the art with the medium.
I hate to break it to you all, but art is just as technically complex as
computers. Simplifications rarely work in discussions in either field.
And since I foolishly feel compelled to allow my original point to be
forced into the copyright hole, I'll end by agreeing with whoever else
it was on this list who said that copyright is a failed experiment and
ought to be eliminated.
[1] There are a few people, trained by Adams who might, or do make
prints from Adams' negatives, but these prints are *not* distributed as
prints by Ansel Adams. In the world of photographic art, the distinction
between a print made by Adams himself, and one made by an assistant
after his death is not lost.
--
Best Regards,
~DJA.
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
