NY artist Joy Garnett makes paintings based on
found photographs gathered from the mass media. [more info].
In January 2004 she had a solo exhibition of a series of paintings called
"Riot," which featured the figure in extreme emotional states. One of
the paintings, Molotov, was based on an uncredited
image found on the web that turned out to be a fragment of a 1979 photograph by
Susan Meiselas.
When Meiselas and her lawyer learned of the
painting, they sent a cease-and-desist letter to Garnett accusing her of
"pirating" the photo. They demanded she remove the image of Molotov
from her website, and that she sign a retroactive licensing agreement [PDF] that would sign over all rights to the
painting to Meiselas, and to credit Meiselas on all subsequent reproductions of
Molotov. Garnett offered a compromise: she agreed to give Meiselas a
credit line on her website, but refused to sign a “derivative work” agreement,
claiming that her painting was a transformative fair use of the Meiselas photo.
Meiselas’ attorney, Barbara Hoffman, turned down the offer and instead
threatened Garnett with an injunction, demanding that Garnett comply with all
of the demands as well as pay $2,000 in retroactive licensing fees.
Garnett pulled the image of Molotov
from her website, lest it result in the entire site being pulled down (cf: a “Take-Down order”). She never signed over the rights
to her work, but she was not pursued once the image of Molotov was
removed from her site.
Before Garnett removed the image from her
site, fellow artists who were following her story on Rhizome.org,
(a not-for-profit organization with a website and list serve dedicated to new
media art), grabbed the jpeg in solidarity. First they copied the html and
created mirror pages on their own websites; then they started making
anti-copyright, or “copyfight” agitprop based on the painting, resulting in
many derivative works including collages, animations, etc. Several media and
copyright reform blogs ran the story, and soon it spread globally, along with
the images. The story was translated into Italian, Czech, Chinese, Spanish,
French, and Catalan.
Two years later, (April 2006), Garnett and
Meiselas were invited to speak together at the COMEDIES
OF FAIR U$E symposium
at the New York Institute for the Humanities, organized by Lawrence Weschler and hosted by
Their panel presentations were then re-edited
and published in Harper’s,
February ‘07. (See below).
Harper’s Magazine, February 2007
Portfolio (pp.53-58):
Joy Garnett and Susan Meiselas: ON THE RIGHTS OF MOLOTOV MAN: Appropriation and the
art of context [PDF]
Presented with Jonathan Lethem’s The Ecstasy of Influence: a plagiarism.
Commentary
Harper’s
Magazine, April 2007
Letters: “Credit Where Credit’s Due,” Lawrence Lessig + Jonathan
Lethem; “All Riots Reserved” [PDF]; “All
Riots Reserved” (html)
Harper's Magazine / April
2007
from
LETTERS
I am a
great fan of Susan Meiselas, a contributor with Joy Garnett to February's
portfolio, "On the Rights of Molotov Man," but she, like many
photojournalists, denies a crucial element of her work, to its detriment:
namely, the photograph as a visual communicator. An image speaks to its viewer
in a different way than a word to its reader. The "psychological
gesture," a term coined by the director Michael Chekhov, is a physical pose
that personifies the struggle or action of its character and conveys a feeling
rather than a story. Pictures are not stories, and to attempt to keep them in
the cage of storytelling is to deny their essence.
The
very act of pressing the shutter of a camera is a decontextualization.
It is a process of interpretation that Meiselas seems to dimiss
in her own work, because (and with good reason) she maintains the importance of
the events themselves. Moreover, her distinction between riot and revolution is
itself interpretation. What is a riot if not part of a revolution? The use of
"Molotov Man" as an archetype of struggle, an emotional emblem of the
spirit of riot and revolution, is far from "diminishment of his act of
defiance." It is rather a celebration of it and a sound declaration of the
power of the image.
-- Henry
Jacobson,
More Commentary on the Harper’s
piece
Alan Wexelblat, Copyfight
(Corante.com),
edward_winklman blogspot,
David Bollier, OnTheCommons.org, 1/25/07: Authorship as a Collective Endeavor
Christopher Reiger, The
Hungry Hyaena blog,
[A thorough and thoughtful recap of the
Harper’s piece]
COMEDIES of FAIR U$E:
A Search for Comity in the Intellectual
Property Wars, April 28-30, 2006
Presented by:
The New York Institute for the Humanities at NYU in association with the NYC Humanities Council
Read final program [PDF]
Watch the COMEDIES videos and download mp3s of the
talks.
Read transcripts and commentary here.
Download and use/distribute Joywar lecture
images here.
Articles and Posts referencing
the conference
Mike Madison, madisonian.net, The Drama of Fair Use,
Laura Quilter, derivative works blog, comedies & tragedies of fair use,
Articles and Presentations
referencing Joywar
Richard Rinehart, Canadian Heritage
Information Network (CHIN):
“Nailing Down Bits: Digital Art & Intellectual
Property.”
Date Published: 2006-09-15:
In any discussion of the cultural heritage
community’s response to intellectual property,
one should mention art that explicitly addresses
copyright. Of course sometimes art works
become unintentionally well-known for copyright issues that
arise around them. These
artworks can become exemplary of a specific intellectual
property issue, or can even
become cultural touchstones and rallying points for copyright
activism. One work in the
former category is the aforementioned sculpture by Jeff Koons, String of Puppies. A work
in the latter category is Molotov, a painting by artist
Joy Garnett. Joy Garnett’s paintings
incorporate mass media imagery in the form of painted versions of photo-journalistic
images
that she finds online and elsewhere. Her subject is not
just the subject of the photo, but
the photo itself as a cultural artifact. In one such
painting, Molotov, she cropped and painted
an image of a young man about to toss a soda bottle
Molotov bomb. She exhibited this painting
and was sued [sic]* by the photojournalist who had
produced the original photograph. This
might have remained a routine instance of alleged copyright
infringement but for what happened
next. The art community rallied to Garnett and many artists
began appropriating the same image
for works of their own, sometimes changing the contents of
the bottle or other details, in a
cultural movement that became known as Joywar!
*The threat of an injunction was dropped after
Garnett removed the jpeg of Molotov from her website.
David Bollier, On the Commons.org, “Clearance Culture vs. Creative Freedom,”
Marjorie Heins,
LAWDRAGON, “Quiet Riot - Will Fair Use Survive?”
Creativity is under assault. Copyright holders
from Mattel to a famed photographer are threatening those who create
and critique, undermining technology’s ability to propel
message and stoke debate.
Marjorie Heins and
Tricia Beckles, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU
School of Law, Free Expression Policy Project.
Symposium
on Free Culture & the Digital Library,
Will Fair Use Survive? Free Expression in the Age of
Copyright Control (html); Download Final Report (PDF)
David Green, Towards Fair Use Best Practices
for Individual Creators: “Pirates,
Thieves & Innocents:
Perceptions
of Copyright Infringement,” Copyright Symposium, Center for Intellectual Property,
University of
March 8, 2004:
“Joywar” is officially kicked off by Rhizome’s Net.Art
News publication and RSS
dissemination of the blog post: Joywar: The Molotov
Years (see below)
Joywar took place during March and April 2004. This page contains an
incomplete archive accumulated
as the sit-in progressed. Many of the links may now be
broken. However, stills and screen shots of many
Joywar works can be seen in streaming video as
part of the lecture “Painting Mass Media + The Art of
Fair
Use” that I gave at
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/arts/dmc/docs/lectureseries.html, or in the Thumbnail
Archive. New
articles and links to presentations have since been added to
this page.
Read an encapsulization
of the story here.
Read about it in the context of fair use here.
JG
NYC
November 2005
Joywar: The Molotov Years
Rhizome.org - Net.Art
News, March 8, 2004
http://rhizome.org/netartnews/story.rhiz?timestamp=20040308
Recall Toywar, the battle between Zurich-based
net collective etoy.com and
eToys, a once-profitable but eventually bankrupted toy
vendor? Recap: in
1999, the retailer closed down etoy.com,
arguing that eToys users who
accessed the art site would be offended by its content. In an
act of
'electronic civil
disobedience,' etoy supporters bombarded eToys.com,
overwhelmed its servers, and helped devalue its stock to $1/share.
When
the dust settled, the commercial giant had lost five
billion dollars worth
of equity in 81 days and etoy.com retained the rights to
its name. Now:
Joywar. Artist Joy Garnett, whose paintings sample
photojournalism, is
being sued by a photographer over 'Molotov,' a reworked,
large-scale
painting based on an image from 1978. The case hinges on the
question of
who owns media images, especially those that are
supposedly documentarian:
after all, if an artist can lay original and exclusive claim
to the
portrait of a revolutionary hurling a molotov cocktail, we
might have
pause to wonder on the nature of that captured event. We
might also notice
the anxiety released when an image is remade and given new
meaning, new
circulation, and yes, new profit potential. While she awaits the
outcome
of the suit, whose plaintiff is demanding several
thousand dollars,
credit, and that she not exhibit or produce the work again,
Garnett has
removed 'Molotov' from her website. Garnett's peers have
initiated a
'Joywar,' and a flourishing campaign to
sample, share and remix is
underway. It's impossible to list here all of the mirror sites
and uses of
'Molotov' that have exploded in the last week
or so, but it's clear that
many are in favor of the free dissemination and reuse of
images and the
rights of artists like Garnett to sample. -- Christine
Smallwood
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/solidarity.html
……………
Note: Rhizome.org
is a nonprofit organization that was founded in 1996 to provide an online
platform for
the global new media art community. Programs and services
support the creation, presentation, discussion
and preservation of contemporary art that uses new
technologies in significant ways. Core activities include
commissions, email discussions and publications, and a web site.
Though the organization is
based, the Rhizome.org community is geographically
dispersed, and includes artists, curators, writers,
designers, programmers, students, educators and new media
professionals.
[ref: http://rhizome.org/info/index.php ]
……………
__________________________________________________________________________________
Solidarity
Some Dancers & Musicians – March 2004
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/solidarityold.html
The American artist Joy Garnett, whose
paintings are derived from news images, is
faced with a legal action for thousands of dollars over this
one. This has nothing to do
with the protection of livelihood and everything to do with
the suppression of free
speech and free artistic practice.
Don't let the schoolyard bullies win!
Show your solidarity with Joy by grabbing this image and posting it on your
website
or by making your own artwork derived from it,
like
this or
this or
this or this or this or this
or this or this or this or this
or this or this or
this or this or
this or this or this
or this or this
or this or this or this or this
This list is by no means exhaustive!
When you've made your artwork or posted the image, don't forget to mail Joy
with the URL
about Joy
mail Joy
main page
UPDATE (Jan 16, 2005): This
solidarity page was itself remixed as part of The Getaway Experiment
commissioned by Turbulence. Have a look and keep
clicking the central image for more:
http://turbulence.org/Works/getawayexperiment/solidarity/index.php
……………
__________________________________________________________________________________
Britlatov Cocktail
March 25, 2004
same text as above, recycled with new image :
http://sasnak.org/archives/000092.html
……………
back to top
__________________________________________________________________________________
Rhizome Raw
http://rhizome.org/thread.rhiz?thread=12168&text=23570
response posted by Matthew X.
Message 37 of 39 in
thread
3.2.2004
Joy-
I don't think Warhol is
the best parallel...you
should look into Leon Golub's practice. He too collected
thousands of images from the news media and
reworked them on
his canvases...playing with scale and
surface. I remember seeing
a video about him working in his
studio. He had file cabinents full of
images torn from the pages of magazines
and newspapers that he would
create with.
best,
matthew
……………
__________________________________________________________________________________
JOYWAR: The Distorted Molotov
An homage to Joy Garnett's Molotov
Culture Kitchen - March 05, 2004
http://www.culturekitchen.com/archives/000555.html
Joy Garnett[’s] Riot
show are oil paintings of images sampled from newswires and other public news
media. Now she is not only being sued by the photojournalist
whose picture was sample[d] in Molotov
but she is being asked to never show and never sell the
artwork. This is obviously not a case of an
artist protecting his speech rights but of one artist using
his copyrights as a way to censor another
artist. A sad case of Stockholm Syndrome
if there ever was.
Check her work at First
Pulse Projects and drop her a line or two at joyeria[at]walrus[dot]com.
Trackbacks
Trackback for this post:
http://www.culturekitchen.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/522
The following blogs make reference to this post :
» Storm in a Pepsi bottle de Light From
An Empty Fridge
Artist Joy Garnett seems to have got into a bit of legal trouble with a
painting called Molotov,
part of... [More...]
Found in March 12, 2004 04:04 PM
» Britlatov
Cocktail de sasnaK
The American artist Joy Garnett, whose paintings are derived from news images,
is faced with
a legal action for thousands of dollars over this one.
This has nothing to do with the protection
of livelihood and everything to do... [More...]
Found in March 26, 2004 11:43 AM
Say it loud, say it
proud!
1 Comment by: doron at
it is my opinion that image has no
copyrights .
2 Comment
by: Oligonicella at
Baloney. That photojournalist makes a
living by taking photos. Sometimes at great risk to self.
Did the artist *ask* the
photographer? Did the artist *pay* the photographer for the right to use
his/her copyrighted work?
The lazy attitude that
one has the -right- to simply steal the work of another and use it as the
basis for a prefab hack is just that,
lazy. How hard is it to simply paint someone throwing a mol?
Not. Not at all. What the painter did was to plagerize. That is unethical, and illegal. No sympathy
here.
3 Comment by: carol at
The case has similarities
to one involving the Barbie and Ken dolls from several years ago. An
artist took the dolls (some bought, some
found) and modified them, then resold them. The court
verdict was that the modified dolls where
an original peice of art work and even though Mattel
owned
the copyrights on the unmodified
version of the dolls, they could not prohibit the resale of the modified
ones, nor could they collect royalites. Legal precident is
with the painter in this case.
4 Comment
by: Sigivald at
So, Oligonicella,
if a painter ever sees a photograph, and paints a picture based on seeing it, does
the painter also need to ask and pay?
Since when is painting a
picture based on some other work the same as "stealing the work of" that
person? The photograph is copyrighted;
images created via other media based on seeing that photograph
are not, however, violations of that
copyright.
Making a copy of the photohgraph (even with, say, photorealist painting) might
be violation. Making a
painting compositionally based on the
photograph, but with painterly method and especially with substantial
changes, is not, nor should it be.
(Doron
is still wrong; images have copyrights. But s/he is right that the image's
copyright only applies to
the literal image, not to
interpretations of that image, especially wholly-created ones in other media -
there
may be some meat in a copyright case,
of course, for an "interpretation" that consisted simply of
re-coloring
a scan in Photoshop... but IANAL.)
5 Comment by: ryan at
The problem with dealing
with this as copyright, is that Joy's work (like that of Gerhard Richter, Rosenquist,
Rauschenberg, Levine et
al) is a comment on the image being appropriated - and therefore should be
considered critical commentary - a fair use.
But it gets sketchy for some because the painting is also being
sold. it's not sketchy for me because the object of the painting
is an artifact, just like the original photo, that is
sold not based on it's materiality
(well maybe for some painting collectors it is about that, but not usually
photography), but based on it's communicative
potential. no one has asked if the photographer
obtained
permission to capture the image of the
person throwing the molotov? why's that? we should believe that
someone owns the rights to an image
because they snapped a shutter, while the person photographed is
merely a landscape? Joy merely treated
the image as the person in the photo was treated.
But the archive must be
kept safe...
ryan
6 Comment by: steve at
someone should have thought to
copyright that cross around his neck
that someone would have made a few
bills
……………
__________________________________________________________________________________
Joywar
Lukemelia 3/8/2004, 11pm
http://www.lukemelia.com/blog/archives/2004/03/07/
Now playing: Joywar.
[Molotov image]
It's like Grey Tuesday for visual art...
……………
__________________________________________________________________________________
Diritti di
Riot
Guerriglia Marketing March 9, 2004
http://www.guerrigliamarketing.it/news/news.htm
L'artista Joy
Garnett è stata citata in giudizio da un fotografo autore a causa della sua
opera Mololotov,
una rielaborazione ad olio su grande formato di un immagine pubblicata nel 1978 su un settimanale
americano.
Un caso di estremismo del diritto d'autore
che non solo pone l'annosa questione del facoltà di rielaborazione
delle immagini, ma lo fa a partire da un'originale che è una fotografia di cronaca.
Il fotografo ha
infatti potuto catturare il gesto del soggetto senza premurarsi del suo
consenso, avvalendosi
del diritto di
cronaca. Mentre, paradossalmente, quel gesto di ribellione viene trasformato
nel suo opposto
nel momento in
cui diventa una semplice rappresentazione.
Joy Garnett è stata così costretta ad eliminare l'opera dalla sua serie
Riot (già esposta a
che dal suo
sito internet.
Per rispondere a questa assurda causa, una serie
di siti della comunità artistica (e non solo) hanno
cominciato a ripubblicare
la pittura della Garnett in originale o rielaborandola.
Questa la ragione della nuova immagine di home page sul sito di guerrigliamarketing.it.
Attenzione: grazie a tutto questo, l'opera finirà per aumentare
il suo valore
……………
__________________________________________________________________________________
Joywar, riprodurre per tutelare.
March 10, 2004 – Neural.it
http://www.neural.it/nnews/joywar.htm
La rielaborazione dell'opera di un'altra persona non è una pratica nuova nel
mondo dell'arte,
e spesso gli autori
originali coinvolti hanno manifestato disappunto per aver perso una parte
della loro 'paternità'. Paradossale è però il caso di Joy Garnett, artista
che sta per
subire una
causa di violazione del diritto d'autore per aver interpretato
in pittura alcune celebri foto di
cronaca degli
anni settanta. Uno dei fotografi originari ha chiesto alcune migliaia di
dollari di
risarcimento intimando
che l'opera ('molotov') non
sia più esposta, nè pubblicata e che le
sua riproduzioni vengano rimosse perfino dal web. All'assurdità della richiesta la risposta
spontanea è stata quella
di creare un network di siti che
riportano l'immagine 'proibita' in
una qualche forma. La riproduzione infinita dell'opera è la risposta politica che si avvale di
un presupposto
tecnico tanto necessario (l'immaterialità della riproduzione in rete, e quindi
la sua semplice
duplicazione), quanto ormai acquisito da tutti, meno, forse, dagli artisti
ancora seduti
sui loro privilegi di mercato.
……………
__________________________________________________________________________________
tshirt
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 16:33:22 +0100
From: ottokin <xxxx@xxxx.com>
To: Joy Garnett <joyeria@walrus.com>
Subject: Re: tshirt
Produce this shirt an
fuck the Pepsi!
image archived here:
http://newsgrist.net/joywar_tshirt.jpeg
bye from
Paolo
……………
__________________________________________________________________________________
TOYWAR RECALL
2004-03-10
By etoy.MARCOS @
http://feed.etoy.com/p301.html
JOYWAR. the next art war!
[Image]
for further information go:
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/solidarity.html
http://www.eyebeam.org/reblog/
http://rhizome.org/netartnews/story.rhiz?timestamp=20040308
……………
__________________________________________________________________________________
Storm in a Pepsi bottle
Light from an Empty Fridge (blog), Friday 12
Mar 2004 16:03
http://www.fridgemagnet.org.uk/archives/2004/03/002812.shtml
Artist Joy
Garnett seems to have got into a bit of legal trouble with a
painting
called Molotov, part
of a exhibition called Riot
based on photos from newswires
and news sources.
What's the issue? Well, it's not, as I first
expected, the fact that the molotov
bottle has a Pepsi logo on it. That initially reminded me of
Alexander Kosolapov,
whose use of corporate logos I wrote about before. It appears,
though, that the
painting is based on a photograph taken in 1978, and the
photojournalist who
took it is suing for X thousand dollars and also as a
general Cease And Desist to
prevent further exhibition.
It's not therefore a case of Evil Corporate
Censorship Boo Hiss, unless there's
something going on that I wasn't aware of, but it does seem like
another example
of a ridiculous use of copyright given that the original
was taken over twenty-five
years ago and this painting cannot be said to be depriving
the original photographer
of anything at all - in fact it potentially increases her
profile. Nobody is going to use
this painting for some purpose instead of the original. A
painting of a photograph is
not a copy of the photograph, rather a derived work, and
the original was publicly
displayed in news media which increases the degree to which it
could be said to be
public domain. This looks like simple artistic
oversensitivity and I don't have much
sympathy.
Anyway, here are a couple more links on the
subject. New developments will bring
updates, though only if I hear about them, obviously.
News story on rhizome.org where Garnett appears to be a
member. I'm delving
through posts on rhizome.org to try to find out a little more
information.
Solidarity page - links to lots of interesting modified and derived
works that people
have done based on
Molotov as part of the campaign - for example, Distorted Molotov,
[...]
» trackback (0) » art+design » ip
……………
__________________________________________________________________________________
netartreview
http://www.netartreview.net/logs/2004_03_07_backlog.html
::
The artist Joy Garnett may have a lawsuit against her
for using a photo-journalist's image in her
painting titled Molotov. What has
followed after Garnett made her situation public is a deluge of
appropriations and commentaries by net art communities (although
Garnett is not revealing the
names of the plaintiff or her lawyer -- we know the
plaintiff is a woman). Joy Garnett recently
updated her "webring" on
the Rhizome Raw list; her original post can be found on Rhizome.org's
thread: http://rhizome.org/thread.rhiz?thread=12379&text=23895#23895
Because there currently
is no website hosting all of this information. Net Art
Review is supplying all the links, as updated by
Joy Garnett, listed below:
Molotov Web ring : [snip!]
:: Eduardo Navas [+] ::
……………
__________________________________________________________________________________
netartreview
http://www.netartreview.net/logs/2004_03_14_backlog.html#107934566080035392
::
Recently several mailinglists
were flooded with the support messages and actions for
the Molotov painting by Joy Garnet (see post below by
Eduardo Navas). Though I
didn't read all responses (I'm not on all lists that
commented on the Molotov case),
the main thing I missed in all comments was that this
whole type of copyright lawsuits
have had already some clear precedents. Probably the best
known example is the
case
"Puppies" for the work "String of Puppies".
Jeff Koons lost the case and it's interesting
to know why. Here I quote from the article "COPYRIGHT PROTECTION AND APPROPRIATION ART"
by William M. Landes:
"... is appropriation of mass media images by the artist Jeff Koons who was the
defendant in three similar copyright cases in the 2nd Circuit.
In the best-known
case,
photograph of a group of puppies with their owners, tore off the
copyright notice
from the card, and hired an Italian foundry to make four
sculptures based on the
photograph. Since Koons admitted
copying, the only issue on appeal was if his
copying was a fair use.
Counting against fair use is that Koons added little
to the original image except
for changing the medium and adding color. Indeed, altering
the image would
have defeated his purpose of changing the meaning of the
image by putting it in
a different context. On the other hand, Koon's sculpture is not likely to damage
the market for the copyrighted photograph. The products
are in different markets
and won't compete for sales. Yet the plaintiff's business
was licensing photographs
so upholding Koon's fair use
defense could potentially eliminate an important
source of revenue to photographers and result in adverse
incentive effects.
Koons' principle argument for fair use was that his
work should be privileged as
a satirical comment or parody. By appropriating an
everyday image, he claimed
that his work commented critically on a political and
economic system that places
too much value on mass produced commodities and media
images. Not surprisingly,
the court rejected his defense because his work did not
comment directly on the
appropriated image. As noted earlier, fair use requires that the
parody be directed
at least in part at the original work. When the parody
comments on society at large,
the defendant should be able to license the copyrighted
work."
:: Peter Luining [+] ::
……………
__________________________________________________________________________
Miscellaneous Quahogs
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
http://www.sensoryresearch.com/~quahogs/weblog/2004_03_01_archive.html
Read this, if you're concerned about artists' rights to rework culture:
posted by Quahogs ! at 3/24/2004 10:22:04 PM
……………
__________________________________________________________________________
More about painting, photography, and copyrighting images
March 24, 2004 - Working Artist's Journal - Anna L. Conti,
http://www.bigcrow.com/anna/journal/mar04.html
Is it ethical for an artist to paint a picture based on a photograph, without
permission of
the photographer?
This issue has come up more and more frequently since the Pop art era, and it
is currently
being debated online and in the art world because of a
lawsuit being brought against painter
Joy Garnett, by a photojournalist. The photographer shot a photo of a young man
throwing
a molotov cocktail, the image was printed in a
newspaper, and Ms. Garnett made a painting
from the image. The painter's friends are taking action by disseminating Ms.
Garnett's
painting, as well as digitally manipulated versions of it, as
widely as possible. I think they
are trying to make these points:
1- copyright protection is meaningless in these times
2 - we don't care if you use our images, so why should you care if we use yours
3 - copyright protection is wrong - open source standards are better for
society
(There is a parallel version of this argument in the music industry and it
seems like plagiarism
stories have been in the news a bit recently, so maybe it's a
bigger story than I realize, but
or now I want to focus on visual art.)
Both photographers and painters are visual artists. They both manipulate their
mediums to
present a personal vision to the viewer. Some present
"straight" reporting, which is generally
considered "real", "realistic" or
"realism". Others focus on stylistic concerns, but their work is
usually still "representational". Others are more
concerned with pushing the limits of their
mediums, and these images often become "abstract."
And there are plenty of artists who
cross these fuzzy boundaries.
Sometimes painters use photographs. They make painted copies of all or part of
the photo.
They copy the photo as exactly as possible, or just use it as a starting point, and change so
much that the source is not recognizable. Sometimes they
take the actual photo and literally
paste it into the painting.
Less often, photographers use paintings (or sculptures.) They shoot photos of
sculptures and
paintings in public places. They set up a scene to look like a
famous painting, then shoot photos
of it. In at least one case a photographer (Richard Misrach) photographed parts of paintings
and then published a book titled "Pictures of Paintings".
Both painters and photographers "use" what they see in their world.
This includes people,
animals, flowers, food, furniture, buildings, vehicles,
natural and man-made land formations,
sunsets, sunrises, bill boards, magazines, videos, web pages,
etc. The list is infinite. There is
no shortage of images.
Reasons why artists might decide NOT to paint or photograph a particular image:
1. They live in a society that jails or kills artists who make this kind of
image.
2. The image is copyrighted by someone and the artist does not wish to risk a
lawsuit.
3. The subject of the painting or photograph does not want to be portrayed in
this way, and
the artist cares about the feelings of this person or
group.
4. The image has already been done over and over, and this artist has nothing
new to add.
... and, after all, there is no shortage of images.
Reasons why artists might decide NOT to sue another artist for
"stealing" their copyrighted image:
1. It's more trouble than it's worth - how much money can you squeeze out of
the average artist?
2. Thinking about people who live in glass houses.... is there an artist
anywhere who hasn't
appropriated something from other artists?
3. The energy that goes into tracking down and prosecuting copyright violations
is not put into
creating new work.
... and, after all, there is no shortage of images,
and new work to be created.
So, what I still don't understand is why this still happens. If your business
is in the visual arts,
then the issue of copyright is not new to you. So why ask
for trouble? If you're trying to make
a political point, then I can see how getting sued would
add to the value of your project. But if
you're mainly interested in aesthetics, use your creative
juices and pick another image that
does the same thing... it's not like there's a shortage of
images.
Elise Tomlinson on the law and
painters using public images, March 23
photonet forum - a series of letters from photographers on the
issue
……………
__________________________________________________________________________
Who owns the rights to this man's
struggle?
nmazca.blog, mar
26, 2004
http://nmazca.com/blog/arch/2004_03_01_archive.htm#108055172851312438
Yesterday afternoon I clicked over to Amberglow
and noticed a mixed-up, tiled
version of the painting, Molotov, above. That blog's author mentioned legal action
that PepsiCo had brought against the painter, one Joy Garnett, after her "Riot"
series was shown at a NYC gallery.
Scores of freedom-minded, art-savvy, anti-corporate bloggivists
have since
risen in (virtual) solidarity with Ms. Garnett, posting
either the same image or
variations thereof (this is
my favorite) in order to assert artists' rights. This
collective action has been called JoyWar.
I was excited by all of this, and I decided that I too would take up the fight
against Pepsi and its heavy-handed intellectual-property bullying.
But that would
have to wait until after I bought a couple of birdfeeders
and tidied up the back patio.
So... those tasks completed, I sat down to stick to it The Cola
out that Pepsi was not the litigant at odds with Ms.
Garnett. It is, in fact, the
photographer whose image Garnett had downloaded and used as the
source for
her painting (typical for the content of
"Riot"). I discovered this little wrinkle in the
Molotov story after -- say it ain't so! -- taking the time to read the backstory.
One
particular comment on another blog
-- in regard to attribution that Garnettttt dddiidn't
give to this unnamed, world-famous female Magnum
photographer -- left me
wondering "So who is it?"
Susan Meiselas. Very attentive
readers of nmazca.blog will recall the bit that I
posted about her book, Carnival Strippers, back in
October. Meiselas' photo of a
Sandinista fighter was made during her coverage of the armed struggle against the Somoza dictatorship
in
"This is obviously not a case of an artist protecting [her] speech rights
but of
one artist using [her] copyrights as a way to censor
another artist." Is that so?
I would say not, and I'm fairly liberal with access
and use of my own images.
The major factor is attribution, if not
permission. It can't be assumed that a
grainy photo from a not-so-long ago war is in the public
domain. Is it sufficient
to make a general statement about the use of others'
images, make comments
about reinterpretation and altered contexts, and then
present the work for sale
(again, without
credit given to the original creator)? Garnett uses found images,
also, and it would be too much to expect attribution with
those. But this other bit
is tricky, and I wouldn't be so hasty to dismiss
Meiselas' assertion... although
her bit about never showing the painting again, come on.
I'm concerned about originality on one hand, and freedom to adapt on the other.
Another noteworthy point is this: "No one has asked if the photographer
obtained
permission to capture the image of the person throwing the
molotov? Why's that?
We should believe that someone owns the rights
to an image because they
snapped a shutter, while the person photographed is merely a
landscape?" Thus,
my original question: Who owns the right to this man's
struggle?
Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to burn a copy of The
Grey Album.
mr damon
……………
__________________________________________________________________________________
Joywar, What
is it good for?
greg.org, March 26, 2004
http://greg.org/archive/2004/03/26/joywar_what_is_it_good_for.html
The artist Joy
Garnett just had a show called "Riot"
at Debs & Co, lushly
painted figures in caught in moments of distress or violence.
Then she got
threatened with a lawsuit by a Magnum photographer for referencing
a 1978
image of a guy throwing a Molotov cocktail. Of course, the
irony [?] is
that, as Garnett says, "my work is ABOUT the fact that
images are
uncontrollable entities. It's about what happens when you remove
context
and framing devices." Which means,
of course, it's about getting sued.
Congratulations, Joy. I hope you get sued
again real soon.
Related: The Bomb
Project, an archive of "nuclear-related links organized
for artists."
_________________________________________
art | posted by greg allen
……………
__________________________________________________________________________________
JOYWAR
Stay Free! Magazine, march 26, 2004
http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/public/
New York-based artist Joy Garnett has been
threatened with a lawsuit for
creating Molotov, a painting based on a 1978 photograph. Though
Joy has
removed an image of the offending work from her website,
supporters
have rallied around her cause and created art based on HER
art. You can
see the image and read more about it here:
http://rhizome.org/netartnews/story.rhiz?timestamp=20040308
http://rhizome.org/thread.rhiz?thread=12168&text=23419#23419
My personal faves,
of the Molotov-inspired artwork:
http://www.sicplacitum.com/arte/molotov.htm
http://sasnak.org/archives/000092.html
……………
___________________________________________________________________________________
The Pepsi Molotov Cocktail
i_speak_of_dreams weblog,
http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2004/03/als_awake_again.html
Al's awake again. I made dinner. Then there's
this:
”The American artist Joy Garnett, whose paintings are derived from news images,
is faced with a legal action for thousands of dollars
over this one. This has nothing
to do with the protection of livelihood and everything to
do with the suppression
of free speech and free artistic practice. Don't let the
schoolyard bullies win! Show
your solidarity with Joy by grabbing this image and posting
it on your website or
by making your own artwork derived from it."
(the quote is from BoingBoing,
linked at the end of this post.)
The protest page is here.
This is the image in question: <Molotov image>
I assumed that the suit was brought by Pepsi,
as somehow demeaning the brand. It wasn't.
Here's the artist's website: [sic]
“...the most interesting thing just happened:
I'm being sued for
copyright infringement (does it mean I'm finally a grown-up?).
the joke is I was served the letter the day after I met
with an
arts funding rep who encouraged me to list
"sampling" on my
grant application as part of my painting practice. It made
the
whole thing seem almost funny.
The plaintiff is a world-famous photojournalist
who takes pics
in war-torn regions; the pirated image is a detail of a
photograph
taken in 1978. Months back while trolling the Web for news
images
and such, I found the cropped detail w/ no credit line,
probably
on some anti-NAFTA/anarchist solidarity website, printed
it out and
stuck it in a folder to paint later. I had no idea it was a
detail of a
pic by a Magnum photographer or that it was from their
most
seminal series and book. The joke is definitely on me...”
Is Joy Garnett a plaigiarist?
Is it "stealing" to use a figure from another's work in your own?
I'd sure like to see the original image, to
see how much Garnett changed the image. What
would happen if Garnett submitted this work for credit in a
university class?
Postscript: I had first seen the image, and the controversy, from BoingBoing's guestblogger.
Johannes Grenzfurthner is writer, artist and founding member of Vienna/Austria based
art-tech-philosophy group monochrom. monochrom is an unpeculiar mixture of proto-aesthetic
fringe work, pop attitude, subcultural
science and political activism. monochrom's
mission, its
passion and quasi-ontological vocation, is primarily the
collection, grouping, registration and
querying (liberation?) of the scar tissue represented by
everyday cultural artifacts.
More postscript:
The original image is here--it is huge, 70 by 60 inches. The
artist has exhibited the work at
Debs & Co--here are more
images. For my money, while Garnett's work is obviously BASED
on the work of others (news photographs) they are not
mere copies; the works are transformed
by Garnett's craft (the act of painting) and vision (what
is emphasized, what is left out.)
……………
__________________________________________________________________________________
Joywar
April 2004
La artista Joy Garnett,
que basa sus pinturas en fotografías encontradas en presa,
revistas e
Internet, se ha visto implicada en una demanda judicial millonaria por
violación de
derechos de autor. La fotógrafa Susan Meiselas, de la agencia Magnum,
la ha denunciado
por emplear una de sus fotografías en un cuadro que Garnett
expuso en una
galería de Nueva York. La fotografía de Meiselas, de 1978, reproduce
la imagen de un guerrillero
sandinista a punto de tirar un cóctel Molotov elaborado
en una botella de
Pepsi. Garnett encontró esta
imagen, ya recortada y sin mención
de su autora, en una página web y la incorporó en una pintura.
La notícia de la demanda judicial se
difundió rápidamente por Internet, en particular
a partir
de una noticia publicada en el portal de arte en
Internet Rhizome. La cuestión
de los derechos de autor de la fotógrafa sobre la imagen (no ya la foto en sí) y el
hecho de que el pleito obligaba a Garnett a retirar la imagen de su web y posiblemente
destruir la pintura,
suscitó una rápida y airada reacción en la comunidad artística.
La imagen del cuadro de Garnett se copió en varios otros sitios
web, para impedir su
censura, y se propuso elaborar
variaciones a partir de la obra
original en señal de
apoyo. Numerosos
weblogs difundieron y comentaron el caso, que ha pasado a
denominarse
"Joywar", en referencia a "Toywar", otro conocido caso
judicial que
enfrentó al colectivo
artístico eToy con una multinacional. La implicación fortuita de
Pepsi en la historia hizo pensar
a muchos que era la empresa la que denunciaba a
la artista.
Finalmente, el caso parece haber quedado en suspenso. La artista ha elaborado una
completa lista de los
artículos que han recogido
la historia, así como de
las variaciones
que se han creado a partir del
cuadro original. Pau ha participado en esta iniciativa
con una animación flash
que figura entre las favoritas de la propia Garnett.
Enlaces
Joywar: lista de
enlaces elaborado por Joy Garnett
http://firstpulseprojects.net/joywar.html
"Molotov",
animación flash por Pau Waelder
http://www.sicplacitum.com/arte/molotov.htm
……………
__________________________________________________________________________________
Joywar – autoři proti
autorskému právu
by L.P.Fish;
9.4.2004 |
http://www.reflex.cz/Clanek27815.htm
Před několika dny
oznámila americká malířka Joy Garnettová,
že její případ
byl stažen od
soudu a že tak
končí jeden z nejhezčích případů solidarity internetové komunity s kulturou
nových médií, který
vstoupí do dějin jako Joywar. Případ celkem jednoduchý.
Joy Garnettová
je malířka. Náměty svých obrazů čerpá z dokumentárních fotografií. Když
se na její
webové stránce objevil obraz Molotov, namalovaný podle fotografie z demonstrace
publikované v tisku v roce 1978, přišla jí žaloba o náhradu
škody v řádu tisíců dolarů. O tom
že se pojetí problému „autorských práv“ mění v souvislosti
s rozvojem technologií a vznikem
nových médií asi
není pochyb. O tom, že tento vývoj
zahrnuje i řadu soudních sporů
a právních
či mocenských excesů také ne.
Své by o tom mohli vyprávět
hactivisti ze skupiny Yes Men,
jejichž cynická parodie na stránky
koncernu Dow Chemical
(pod který spadá firma Union Karbide odpovědná za jednu z největších
ekologických katastrof
v indickém Bhópálu), rozčílila korporaci natolik, že se kromě žaloby na
samotnou organizaci
pokusila zlikvidovat i intelektuální newyorský server Thing.
Garettová si však vzpomněla na jiný slavný případ.
V roce 1999 byla přerušena činnost
stránky
švýcarských internetových
umělců a aktivistů etoy.com, na základě
žaloby prodavačů hraček
Etoys, kteří tvrdili, že lidé
jdou na doménu etoy.com automaticky pro jejich zboží a jsou zmateni
jejím obsahem. Snaha firmy Etoys
vzbudila takovou zuřivost internetové komunity, že v období
jedna osmdesáti dnů nazývaném později
jako Toywar uživatelé soustavně zahlcovali její server
a především způsobovali
špatnou pověst protestními stránkami o nichž informovala i mainstreamová
média. Způsobili tak propad jejích akcií
a škodu odhadnutou na několik desítek milionů dolarů. Od
té doby si na švýcarské aktivisty sídlící na etoy.com nedovolil nikdo sáhnout.
Ale vraťme se k Joy Garnettová. Ta zveřejnila na internetu svůj případ, v němž vysvětlila vlastní
postoj k autorským
právům, k tomu proč je její obraz něco
„nového“ jakkoli v něm zužitkovává
již vytvořený artefakt a požádala o pomoc. Okamžitě se vytvořily stránky šířící dál informace
o
akci dál nazývané
Joy War. Kopie
fotografie, která byla předmětem žaloby, se bleskem rozšířila
a během několika týdnů vznikly stovky
jiných uměleckých děl rozmístěných na stovkách míst na
internetu a všechna
„samplovala“ zmíněnou fotografii. Žaloba byla stažena.
Na tomto případu je celkem hezké, že
staví do opozice proti „autorskému právu“ samotné autory.
Ukázalo se, že autoři samotní chtějí „samplovat“, že je tato metoda v umělecké
komunitě obecně
přijatelná a tak pomalu nezbývá přiznat, že „autorská
práva“ v současné podobě vyhovují jen
jejich překupníkům.
A to je jistě jeden z mnoha důvodů, proč tenhle stav změnit.
Parodické použití
symbolů existující
firmy či „samplování“ existujícího artefaktu prostě chápou umělci
jako otázku
svobody. A kdo jiný než „autoři“
by měl rozhodovat o jejich „právech“?
……………
________________________________________________________________________________
Molotov Mash-ups: some favorites
http://www.sicplacitum.com/arte/molotov.htm
http://www.rssgallery.com/book.htm
http://www.yougenics.net/griffis/images/JOY_billboard.jpg
http://sasnak.org/archives/000092.html
http://art-design.smsu.edu/cooley/files/molotov/about.html#
http://www.anatomyofhope.net/joy/
http://www.electrichands.com/shanghai-pepsi.jpg
UPDATE: April 2005 email from Esparzios
Punk-Rock requesting permission to make a CD cover.
Here’s the finished cover.
……………
___________________________________________________________________________________________
[Note: some of the urls
below may no longer contain references to this issue.]
Update: New to Joywar (ca. January 2005):
Getaway Experiment: Solidarity
http://newsgrist.typepad.com/underbelly/2005/01/handmade_remixe.html
Still Images: collage / agitprop
http://www.wright.edu/~verdon.2/
http://sasnak.org/archives/000092.html
http://www.popageorgio.com/index.php?p=20
http://www.luthien-tinuviel.net/Molotov/
http://www.yougenics.net/griffis/images/JOY_billboard.jpg
http://www.wallcloud.com/molotovpow.html
http://www.antiexperience.com/edtang/works/molotov.html
http://www.1-900-870-6235.com/Images/PeaceInOurHands.jpg
http://www.voyd.com/joywar/joywar.jpg
http://art-design.smsu.edu/cooley/files/molotov/about.html#
http://www.anatomyofhope.net/joy/
http://www.electrichands.com/shanghai-pepsi.jpg
http://www.voyd.com/joywar/Index.htm
http://www.rssgallery.com/book.htm
http://www.voyd.com/joywar/ascii.htm
http://www.robertspahr.com/joy/
……………
Moving Images / interactive
http://lovebot.free.fr/joywar_cube.htm
http://www.ysagoon.com/diz/web/molotov/
http://www.furtherfield.org/cwebb/screenmoments/molotov.html
http://www.naxsmash.net/bloodellipse/text/disastersofwar(molotov).html
http://www.anti-chambre.net/joywar/
http://www.sicplacitum.com/arte/molotov.htm
http://art-design.smsu.edu/cooley/molotov/
http://544x378.free.fr/(WebTV)/html/molotov.html
http://www.gloriousninth.com/piratesofpenzance.html
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/Some_QuickTime_Movies/art.mov
……………
Mirror Images
http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/reviews/green/green3-17-6.asp
http://www.wallcloud.com/molotov.html
http://www.twhid.com/misc/joy/molotov/
http://linkoln.net/molotov.gif
http://www.leewells.org/joy/Molotov.html
……………
Info / blogs / + image/s
http://www.constantvzw.com/copy.cult/home/read.php?page=mes218.txt
http://rhizome.org/thread.rhiz?thread=12673&text=24383
http://nmazca.com/blog/arch/2004_03_01_archive.htm#108055172851312438
http://www.vojir.com/other/exf-rynyvayzy.html
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze8ci59/
http://greg.org/archive/2004/03/26/joywar_what_is_it_good_for.html
http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2004/03/als_awake_again.html
http://www.dudecheckthisout.com/Blog.aspx?blogId=383
http://www.artnet.com/magazine/reviews/green/green3-17-04.asp
http://www.verybusy.org/v4/index.php?load=include/home/home.php
http://www.ostili.splinder.it/
http://www.fridgemagnet.org.uk/archives/2004/03/002812.shtml
http://home.comcast.net/~aussieintn/
http://samizdat.manilasites.com/
http://italy.indymedia.org/news/2004/03/495780.php
http://feed.etoy.com/p301.html
http://www.neural.it/nnews/joywar.htm
http://www.guerrigliamarketing.it/
http://www.guerrigliamarketing.it/news/news.htm
http://www.murmurs.com/drupal/?q=import/feed/3
http://www.eyebeam.org/reblog/archives/000420.html
http://rhizome.org/netartnews/story.rhiz?timestamp=20040308
http://nathanielstern.com/oldblogs/2004_03_07_oldblogs.html#1078765847004533
http://groups.msn.com/CyberspaceMegaBrains
http://www.yougenics.net/griffis/
http://www.culturekitchen.com/archives/000555.html
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/solidarity.html
……………
Info / linking blogs / bbs
http://www.yah.org.uk/forum/threads.php?id=668_0_2_0_C
http://www.horriblemonster.com/link/
http://www.reflex.cz/Clanek27815.htm
http://web.syr.edu/~sahovend/car530/
http://www.abstractdynamics.org/
http://lovebot.free.fr/joywar.php
http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/public/
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/stayfree/2004-March/000072.html
http://www.sensoryresearch.com/~quahogs/weblog/2004_03_01_archive.html#108018492438227927
http://www.artthrob.co.za/04apr/project.html
http://www.abstractdynamics.org/
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:eTG77Vg7WiwJ:ecal-mid.kaywa.com/p113.html+joywar&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
http://www.bigcrow.com/anna/journal/mar04.html
http://www.vilaweb.com/indextext.html
http://www.artsjournal.com/man/archives20040301.shtml#74180
http://www.netartreview.net/weeklyFeatures/molotovwebring.html
http://www.consumerwhore.biz/index.cfm?contentID=461
http://thedavidlawrenceshow.com/001784.html
http://dmsbeijing.omweb.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4
http://boingboing.net/text/2004_03_14_guestbar.html
http://www.newbrainframes.org/index.php?gg=28&tid=2
http://www.kjj.it/dams/risorse/copyright.php
http://www.artsjournal.com/man/
http://www.netartreview.net/logs/2004_03_07_backlog.html
http://www.livejournal.com/users/choiresicha_rss/80368.html
http://www.blogigo.de/wiredtexts/entry/6862
http://www.anti-chambre.net/blog//archive.php?id=75
http://www.thing-net.de/cms/wap-d.php
http://radiofreeblogistan.com/
http://www.vojir.com/other/exf-rynyvayzy.html
http://www.firstpulseprojects.net/riot_2003/newyorker2004.html
……………
Joy Garnett: Selected Lectures & Articles
on Appropriation + Open Source Culture
Harper’s
Magazine,
February 2007
Portfolio
(pp.53-58):
Joy Garnett and Susan Meiselas: ON THE RIGHTS OF MOLOTOV MAN: Appropriation and the art of
context [PDF]
PAINTING + OPEN SOURCE (RealPlayer: panel
+ Q+A, in 2 parts)
Open Source: On the Line
panel organized by Rhizome at the Vera List Center for Art + Politics at The New School,
Dec. 4, 2006
See slides of this talk;
Webcasts: part 1; part 2
COMEDIES of FAIR U$E: A Search for Comity
in the Intellectual Property Wars
April 28-30, 2006
New York Institute for the Humanities at NYU
13 minute talk (Quicktime):
http://newsgrist.typepad.com/comediesoffairuse/
Slides from talk: http://www.flickr.com/photos/newsgrist/sets/72057594138438448/
Discussion on Laura Quilter’s blog: derivative
works: comedies & tragedies of fair use
Blogging + The Arts 2: Hosted by
Rhizome at The New Museum
New
Rhizome.org Director of Technology Francis Hwang will lead a panel
discussion on Blogging and the Arts. This panel, the second
in a series hosted by Rhizome.org, includes painter and web-artist Chris Ashley, painter Joy Garnett, artist and programmer Patrick
May, and writer Liza Sabater. The discussion will address
issues such as ways that artists are using blogs to distribute their own work,
and the influence of blogging culture on political
issues of interest to those in the arts. [Thumbnail
Archive of Joywar]
In Their Own Words: JOY GARNETT
Between Yahoo.com slide shows, 24-hour television news, and competing
tabloid newspapers, we've become a culture that's accustomed to the sensations
of media imagery. Here Joy Garnett describes how she transforms news
photographs into paintings, a slowing-down process to counter what she sees as
our culture's mal-absorption of images related to technology, surveillance and
war. Read article
Between 0 and 1: Digital Rights
and the Future of Art Images Online
College Art Association,
February 17, 2005, 12:30-2:00pm
Speakers: Chair, Eve Sinaiko, CAA; Christine Kuan,
Editor, Grove Art Online (
Max Marmor,
The ARTstor Project; Ted Feder, Artists Rights Society; Joy Garnett, Artist.
Cultural Politics, Volume 1, Issue 1, March 2005; available online (free pdf download)
Edited by John
Armitage, Douglas Kellner, Ryan
Bishop. Contributors: Andrew
Field Report: "Follow the Image," by Joy Garnett
download article [pdf]
ABSTRACT: New York artist Joy Garnett outlines her methods as a painter who
works from sampled or found images. She discusses her relationship to her
sources, which have included science photographs, declassified military and
news media imagery. She describes the challenges she has encountered while
working with different types of source material: from technical obstacles
(invisible phenomena that require lenses and other optical devices) to
socio-political mediation (government secrecy and the search for declassified
imagery), to legal encumbrances (accusations of "piracy" and
copyright infringement regarding a sampled image). Garnett explains her sense
of the continued relevance and critical potential of art in light of these challenges,
specifically the uses of painting in an age of mass production and digital
technology.
Painting Mass Media & the Art of Fair
Use
For streaming video (QuickTime) of my
September ‘04 lecture please visit
the Art & Technology lecture series at
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/arts/dmc/docs/lectureseries.html
or go directly to the lecture:
http://www.ccnmtl.columbia.edu/itc/soa/dmc/joy_garnett/index.html
“Steal This Look,” Intelligent
Agent, Intellectual Property Issue, Vol.4, no.2 (Summer 2004)
This is a short piece about Joywar
written very shortly afterwards:
http://www.intelligentagent.com/archive/Vol4_No2_ip_garnett.htm
http://www.intelligentagent.com/archive/IA4_2ip_steallook_garnett.pdf
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work,
including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords
or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as
criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for
classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair
use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is
of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not
itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of
all the above factors.
"Toward
a Fair Use Standard," 103 Harv. L. Rev.
1111 (1990), by Judge Pierre Leval [source]
"The use must be productive and must
employ the quoted matter in a different manner or for a different purpose from
the original. A quotation of copyrighted material that merely repackages or
republishes the original is unlikely to pass the test; in Justice Story's
words, it would merely "supersede the objects" of the original. If,
on the other hand, the secondary use adds value to the original -- if the
quoted matter is used as raw material, transformed in the creation of new
information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings -- this is the
very type of activity that the fair use doctrine intends to protect for the
enrichment of society. Transformative uses may include criticizing the
quoted work, exposing the character of the original author, proving a fact, or
summarizing an idea argued in the original in order to defend or rebut it. They
also may include parody, symbolism, aesthetic declarations, and innumerable
other uses."
General Information + Articles
“Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology
and the
Law to Lock Down Culture and Control
Creativity” (Penguin 2004)
Righting
Copyright: Fair Use & “Digital Environmentalism”
By Robert S. Boynton, Book Forum, Feb/Mar 2005
This is a brilliant article that promotes the
various movements in copyright reform,
including the strategy of the “copyright misuse” doctrine as a
way to bolster fair use.
Fundamentals of Intellectual Property
(Copyright + Trademark law – PDF files)
Astrachan Gunst & Thomas PC
http://www.aggt.com/resources/funda_ip.html
Creative Commons
Stay Free!
a print magazine focused on issues surrounding
commercialism and American culture.
http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/
Detritus
a web site “about fine art and pop culture. Lofty postmodern theory and grassroots resistance.”
Illegal Art
Freedom of Expression in the Corporate Age
Grey Tuesday – Free the Grey Album
VCE Art - Borrowed Elements in Art
http://www.vceart.com/explore/ideas/page.2.html
……………
Original
photo by Susan Meiselas, c.1979
Context
of original photograph:
“Molotov” painting (2003) Oil on canvas, 70
x 60 inches (Mirror sites)
http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/reviews/green/green3-17-6.asp
http://www.wallcloud.com/molotov.html
http://www.twhid.com/misc/joy/molotov/
http://linkoln.net/molotov.gif
http://www.leewells.org/joy/Molotov.html
B &
W photo, cropped, uncredited
(found while searching for URL of fragment)
http://www.haroldpinter.org/politics/politics_america.shtml