On 04/01/2011 07:21 PM, brian gibson wrote: > > money seems the issue. and a call for respect. > regardless of how much a piece is altered
The"original" is a pastiche of documentary styles produced without compensating its models. If documentary photography had the same standards applied to it that we are being asked to apply to art, it would be declared illegal and immoral. > it's existence is impossible without the original. This is true of all representational art, however transformative. > to profit off the back of another artist is disgusting. That means that schools, genres, and media are "disgusting". > fight for rights, but forget not morals. > > and either way > > no law will "stop" a real artist from creating whatever she/he wants. But this law can suppress anything you create if it fails an arbitrary test of originality. - Rob. _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
