On 18/01/2008, at 11:39 AM, Michael Verdi wrote: > I understand and agree with what you just wrote and what Andreas wrote > earlier about the manifesto. No arguments there from me. I think (at > least it's the case with me) that what is bothering some of us is that > when we first heard of this project it was simply an artistic exercise > using some restrictions. As is often the case, people find those kinds > of things challenging, fun and freeing. It was when we were later > presented with this manifesto that seemed to wrap all of our videos > (that we had submitted and/or tagged for inclusion on the website) in > a context that many of didn't agree with. And what's more I think > many, like myself, would have chosen to play some other game had we > been presented with that manifesto before hand.
fair enough. I guess if it wasn't called a manifesto, or was otherwise labelled as a response to the works (so that the writing and its ideas arose as response to the works) the tension going on might be lessened. But that's by the by now. I also guess it is much like your work being curated as part of a collection but if you didn't want to be included (for whatever reason) then you would expect under existing moral rights regimes (not sure if this exists in the US, a summary of the Australian legislation is at <URL: http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/Copyright_IssuesandReviews_Moralrights >) that as owner of the work you could ask to be not included in the collection. cheers Adrian Miles [EMAIL PROTECTED] bachelor communication honours coordinator vogmae.net.au
