![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
Photographers in general seem to be overwhelmingly in support of Lane Hartwell for sending a bill for a usage of her photo for a couple seconds in a youtube video.
I'm going to start this off by saying that as an artist I survive primarily from my photo work. I've shot everything from commercial tabletop to weddings, set photography for films to having gallery shows. And I've had images taken for commercial use (which I care about) and posted in places as strange as 13 year old's myspace pages and porn messageboards (which I don't care as much about, except as a matter of surreal social interest).
I agree that it may feel weird when you see your image in a place without knowing it would be there beforehand, but I think it is MUCH MUCH more important to defend the ability of art to be as CREATIVE as possible with as FEW roadblocks in its path. Commercial use is another thing entirely, of course. Lane is quoted as defending her image from unapproved commercial use, but to me, this obviously is not the case.
picture has nothing to do with this post. (c) 2007 who gives a fuck (me. please don't sell tampons with this picture)
Video art and sound art, especially modern experimental work (as well as documentary work, where independent filmmakers trying to show something important to the world often get stonewalled by a copyright issue, trying to find some archival footage copyright owner), thrives on mashup culture. To me, this is a clear cut case of a professional going after a non-profit group of people having a little fun in their time off work, trying to make something creative. I think it's very petty. The idea that she got a lawyer to harass a group of a capella singers who made a funny youtube video is ridiculous.
What about appropriation? Hasn't it been heavily defended in art?
Haven't many famous photographs been produced of other photographs, including some of the best selling of all time? ( eg. Prince's marlboro photograph)
Isn't photography itself one of the most heavily contested mediums, for "stealing" other artist's or organization's images and using them? Aren't photographers often protesting someone trying to get them to stop taking pictures of their buildings, sculptures, faces, etc?
With the internet comes the next level of this debate, and I see it as one that traditional art and copyright is set to lose. Artists will do whatever it takes to make whatever points they want to make, as trivial or earthshattering as they may be.
To conclude: of course I like money for the use of my image. And of course I like credit, especially if money is not an option for the user.
But in this case they did make a huge effort to give credit (after a reminder). I see them as clearly on the right in this particular case.
I say use it to your benefit and don't end up lost with the flow.
I want to add that I think in different circumstances the response of the photographer should be appropriate.
Corporate ad - Send bill or use legal action
Editorial usage(in a publication for sale) - send bill or use legal action
Website usage for corporation - Send bill or use legal action
Newsletter/email/etc for corporation - Send bill or use legal action
Website for nonprofit - send email asking if they knew they forgot to ask, possibly compensation if they are able, ask for credit
Non-profit publication - ask for credit, possible compensation
Arts non-profit publication (zine) - ask for credit
Arts usage (appropriation, gallery, mashup, etc) - ask for credit
Internet video - ask for credit, postdated royalties if video ever becomes popular and makes large amounts of money (never)
Myspace, livejournal, imageboard (such as 4chan.org), etc - laugh, post credit yourself as anon, stop being such a stickler and realize the internet is always going to be a den of scum and villainy. Go have an ice cream.
Feel free to totally disagree with me, of course. I'd like to hear what you think.
December 21 2007, 03:38:20 UTC 4 years ago
The Richter Scales are NOT a non-profit group or organization. They are not registered as such, nor do they conform to the charitable or social purpose functions that such entities usually perform.
They are non-profit ONLY in that they do not make a profit because they do not sell enough tickets/CD's/merch/whatever!
They charge admission to their events, they sell CD's. They are in business and they used several copyrighted artworks to attempt to further that business and generate revenues, without the permission of the holders of copyright.
In a moral and ethical sense, they are THIEVES.
Now whether in the eyes of the law they are infringers is another matter and is subject to some rather involved analysis. But they are NOT the good guys here. Period.
M
December 21 2007, 03:46:07 UTC 4 years ago
True, the creators do sell things and have concerts (donation suggested, it says) but the artistic piece itself is freely available.
Personally I don't care if they are bad or good guys here, I think that appropriated imagery used in art (regardless of how good the art is) must be defended.
December 21 2007, 04:00:50 UTC 4 years ago
M
December 21 2007, 04:05:15 UTC 4 years ago
December 21 2007, 04:10:10 UTC 4 years ago
M
December 21 2007, 07:28:51 UTC 4 years ago
But ultimately, since 1982 and the dawn of MTV, music videos have been about selling albums. The fact that the place for the video has shifted from mostly free basic cable to mostly free internet (still have to pay for your ISP) doesn't change the end result -- they want to sell more discs, or put more butts in seats at their concerts, and a successful viral video will help them do that.
4 years ago
December 21 2007, 03:58:36 UTC 4 years ago
1) If you wish to donate your rights to charity, or release them into the public domain, that is your right and your prerogative. (Why does that word never look like it's spelled right?) Please don't proceed from a position that people who wish to control their own artistic creations are "petty" if they are not in lockstep with your own inclinations, because if that's where you're coming from, we're not going anywhere.
2) The Constitution of the United States, which is the Supreme Law of the Land, mandates that artists must receive copyrights. (Apologies to those outside the US: while I know a reasonable amount about international copyright protocols I am just not going to get into them here.) I agree completely that Disney et al have warped the system into a mockery of the original notion, which was that in exchange for an artist sharing their work with the rest of us, they would have the right to limit its use for a limited period of time.
3) However, just as photography (especially photogravure and its descendants) did not mean that painters shouldn't be allowed to prevent people from using their paintings in violation of copyright just because they could do it without taking the original artwork, all this "new media" jazz does not provide any logical reason why photographers shouldn't have the right to limit the use of their own creative works. Just because it's easier to steal doesn't make it any more ethical to do so.
4) I strongly protest any attempt to justify theft on the basis that the thief is not profiting from their crime. And I define "profiting from" very broadly indeed. For instance, the Richter Scales may not have been selling the video with the misappropriated artworks. However, by using it to promote their (for-profit) activities, they are generating goodwill which is, presumably, intended to generate revenue. The fact that they are not particularly successful at revenue generation might be relevant to the determination of punitive sanctions and/or damages and mandatory licensing fees, but it is no defense whatsoever to the basic claim of infringement. Furthermore, YouTube is a for-profit enterprise. They sell advertising. Every click on that video generated revenue for them. They are largely innocent, but the Richter Scales have essentially turned them into criminals and that means even more loss for the artists involved.
5) I also do not buy all this orphan/lost source/hardship business about finding licenseholders. If it's not yours, don't use it. Why is that so hard? There are BILLIONS of artworks in the public domain and furthermore, nothing is stopping you from making your own. You call it "mashup," I call it laziness.
M
December 21 2007, 04:02:12 UTC 4 years ago
From Warhol to Girl Talk, I think art needs to be free to incorporate and comment on other creations.
December 21 2007, 04:09:26 UTC 4 years ago
Art is free to do just what you require. However, it is not inherently offensive to Art to require that people engaged in ongoing commercial enterprises, such as the Richter Scales not infringe on the rights of other people, including but not limited to those who are engaged in their own ongoing commercial enterprises, such as Lane Hartman. If the Richter Scales gave away their CD's for the cost of production (or free) and never charged anybody anything, their moral position would be much improved, but since that's not the case, it's not relevant.
The Lone Pamphleteers of the world will always be protected by the First Amendment and the Fair Use doctrine, barring radical shifts in the law. Art is quite safe. Theft is another matter.
M
December 21 2007, 04:18:01 UTC 4 years ago
December 21 2007, 04:18:56 UTC 4 years ago
Maybe the solution is to change the requirements for proving copyright infringement so that in addition to proving unauthorized copying, etc. the plaintiff should also have to prove that the use was *not* fair. But that's not the way it works right now.
December 21 2007, 04:28:21 UTC 4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
Deleted comment
December 21 2007, 04:23:29 UTC 4 years ago
December 21 2007, 04:22:51 UTC 4 years ago
I think that the Richter Scales might have a solid argument for comparing themselves to Andy Warhol. But they have to make that argument to Youtube and until they do, Youtube has no duty to put their video back up.
December 21 2007, 04:24:45 UTC 4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
December 21 2007, 04:11:53 UTC 4 years ago
I'm sure, for example, that they would be quite upset if the reverse happened and Lane Hartwell used one of their songs to form the soundtrack of a photo display on the web and didn't credit or pay them for it.
And what's more, Flickr makes it really easy to contact the photographer and say "hey... I like your picture. Can I use it in this video I'm making?"
Yes, a music video is an artistic work, and yes, the use of a few seconds of the picture is pretty small. But the right thing to do would have been to shoot Lane Hartwell an email and say "hey, we're a small indie band and we came across your photo. We'd like it to appear for a few seconds in this video. Is that OK?"
The use is minimal, but it's still unauthorized. Just because something is art can't categorically allow the creator to ignore other people's rights to their own work. Is it fair use? Honestly, it may well be. And if the band wants to argue that, then they have a right to have Youtube put the video back online. It sounds like the use of the photo was fairly minimal and I highly doubt that people are going to download the video as a substitute for buying a copy of the picture, which are two very important things to consider in the fair use analysis. But what bothers me is that they simply assumed that it would be OK, or that they wouldn't get caught when they could have easily avoided this whole thing by asking.
This isn't a case where you have a piece of public art where it's hard to contact the artist. This is a case where the artist is only a mouse click away. The point is they should have asked first.
Incidentally, I don't think this would qualify as a parody. Generally, when you are talking about a parody in the fair use sense of the word, you are making fun of the work that you are fairly using. Like writing a novel that uses characters, settings, and plot elements from another book to make fun of the subject. The more generally targeted the satirical piece is, the less likely it is to qualify as a fair use parody.
To put it simply, parody is fair use. Satire isn't. There is a difference, and its an important one.
December 21 2007, 04:22:14 UTC 4 years ago
Moreso, though, I think in general there is definitely a place for art using stuff without permission, even using things when they have been expressly denied permission (recutting commercials to make a biting commentary of a company, for example)
December 21 2007, 04:28:29 UTC 4 years ago
Recutting commercials is a very different thing than what the Richter Scales did though. The targeting is really important. Yes, re-cutting a commercial creates an unauthorized derivative of the commercial. And yes, that's copyright infringement. But it also serves a public purpose and could be considered news reporting.
The idea of using a preexisting work of art to create something else is different and the key questions seem to be how much copying you're doing and the impact on the market for the original. Let's face it, copyrights are all about making money.
December 21 2007, 04:33:15 UTC 4 years ago
December 21 2007, 04:23:45 UTC 4 years ago
If I owned the company, tomorrow I would direct the marketing people to make a commercial using their music and promote it until Hell wouldn't have it without ever paying them a dime or giving them any credit. But I am spiteful that way.
Otherwise, IAWTC. :)
M
December 21 2007, 04:26:42 UTC 4 years ago
I still think that their use falls under the fair use defense. They are not causing any money to be lost or competing with the product. No one is going to download their video and play the one frame over and over in a video frame instead of buying a print of her picture.
December 21 2007, 04:30:33 UTC 4 years ago
December 21 2007, 04:34:13 UTC 4 years ago
December 21 2007, 04:29:31 UTC 4 years ago