ARTBASE (1)
BIO
Joy Garnett is a painter based in New York. She appropriates news images from the Internet and re-invents them as paintings. Her subject is the apocalyptic-sublime landscape, as well as the digital image itself as cultural artifact in an increasingly technologized world. Her image research has resulted in online documentation projects, most notably The Bomb Project.
Notable past exhibitions include her recent solo shows at Winkleman Gallery, New York and at the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC; group exhibitions organized by the Whitney Museum of American Art, P.S.1/MoMA Contemporary Art Center, Artists Space, White Columns (New York), Kettle's Yard, Cambridge (UK), and De Witte Zaal, Ghent (Belgium). She shows with aeroplastics contemporary, Brussels, Belgium.
extended network >
homepage:
http://joygarnett.com
The Bomb Project
http://www.thebombproject.org
First Pulse Projects
http://firstpulseprojects.net
NEWSgrist - where spin is art
http://newsgrist.typepad.com/
Notable past exhibitions include her recent solo shows at Winkleman Gallery, New York and at the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC; group exhibitions organized by the Whitney Museum of American Art, P.S.1/MoMA Contemporary Art Center, Artists Space, White Columns (New York), Kettle's Yard, Cambridge (UK), and De Witte Zaal, Ghent (Belgium). She shows with aeroplastics contemporary, Brussels, Belgium.
extended network >
homepage:
http://joygarnett.com
The Bomb Project
http://www.thebombproject.org
First Pulse Projects
http://firstpulseprojects.net
NEWSgrist - where spin is art
http://newsgrist.typepad.com/
Re: I am a pirate ?!
yay for pirate commies; maybe someone should set up an art law blog --
other than lawrence lessig's I mean. or perhaps there's one out there and
I haven't seen it?
btw here's a funny last paragraph to my monthly horoscope, tee hee:
"That silver wanderer, the moon, is new on the 20th in Pisces and this an
auspicious time for travel and revelation of a philosophical or
metaphysical sort, and if thinking about litigation issues and rights,
this is a time to get heard successfully."
indeed!
best,
j
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Pall Thayer wrote:
> Communication? Isn't that where the term 'commie' came from?;)
>
> I'm sure you have nothing to worry about and when it's all over you can turn
> around and sue them for causing you grief and emotional distress.
>
> Maybe we should all have our lawyers post to the list for us from now on.
> Highly self-destructive behaviour this.
>
> Pall Thayer
> artist/teacher
> Fjolbrautaskolinn vid Armula
> http://www.this.is/pallit
> http://www.this.is/pallit/isjs
> http://www.this.is/pallit/harmony
> http://130.208.220.190/panse
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joy Garnett" <joyeria@walrus.com>
> To: "Pall Thayer" <palli@pallit.lhi.is>
> Cc: <list@rhizome.org>
> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 3:33 PM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: I am a pirate ?!
>
>
> > funny Pall, good point: I'd simply email the artist about the work in
> > question and have a conversation. it's called c-o-m-m-u-n-i-c-a-t-i-o-n,
> > right? anyway, I was just told by a photo curator I know that this
> > photojournalist and her lawyer (yah, both are women) are well-known for
> > being horrible bitches from hell. looks like I'm stuck with a couple of
> > winners...
> >
> > thanks much for the fair use link. I can't tell you how good it feels to
> > have a fair use champion lawyer backing me.
> >
> > stay tuned,
> > Joy
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Pall Thayer wrote:
> >
> > > Probably the reason they're not asking you for money is that from the
> sound
> > > of it you could come up with a pretty good "fair use" argument and they
> > > wouldn't get any money anyway out of a costly lawsuit.
> > >
> > > http://fairuse.stanford.edu/
> > >
> > > Since the photographer has obviously already talked to his lawyer, he's
> > > probably aware of this and if you were in a similar position and all you
> > > wanted was credit, would you do it through your lawyer?
> > >
> > > Pall Thayer
> > > artist/teacher
> > > Fjolbrautaskolinn vid Armula
> > > http://www.this.is/pallit
> > > http://www.this.is/pallit/isjs
> > > http://www.this.is/pallit/harmony
> > > http://130.208.220.190/panse
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Joy Garnett" <joyeria@walrus.com>
> > > To: <list@rhizome.org>
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 6:22 PM
> > > Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: I am a pirate ?!
> > >
> > >
> > > > friends,
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > To my mind of course my derivative artwork has very little to do with
> the
> > > > original photo. First of all it's a painting; it also happens to be
> > > > 6-feet tall and rather decontextualized from whatever its original
> context
> > > > was. And it's wildly cropped and brushy and all that painterly stuff.
> But
> > > > apparently the use of a different medium doesn't make it any more
> > > > justifyable to "derive" under the present copyright law.
> > > >
> > > > how did the plaintif find out about it? I was ratted out by a supposed
> > > > friend, also a photojournalist, who recognized the image--they stick
> > > > together. also: the painting was in my solo show that just came down
> last
> > > > week; the image was used for my announcement card and is on the
> gallery's
> > > > and my websites. The show was reviewed in the New Yorker and the
> > > > derivative artwork in question was praised. Basically I'm screwed in
> > > > terms of wanting to fight it--the plaintif is wholly within their
> rights.
> > > >
> > > > Here's the thing: for all that my dander is up, the plaintiff is being
> > > > pretty cool considering their permissions-centered world-view:
> > > > they are basically asking only that I supply a credit line, and that I
> ask
> > > > for permission in writing to exhibit/reproduce in the future. They
> don't
> > > > want $$ for this particular infringement. basically they chose to
> license
> > > > the image to me for my exhibition after the fact. It seems reasonable
> and
> > > > rather decent.
> > > >
> > > > However being sued does bring up the whole issue for me in a weird
> way. I
> > > > mean, my work is ABOUT the fact that images are uncontrollable
> entities.
> > > > It's about what happens when you remove context and framing devices.
> > > > my work is derivative by definition, and thoroughly reflective of this
> age
> > > > of sampling and remixing. This will no doubt happen to me again. And
> > > although
> > > > the permissions people--photojournalists, the recording industry, etc.
> > > > --are fighting a losing battle, you can bet they are going to fight
> til
> > > > the death. I may be getting off easy this time, but it seems that when
> > > > your aquaintances lie and then turn you in for copyright infringement,
> > > > the climate of creativity--not to mention general decency--is in
> serious
> > > > danger.
> > > >
> > > > I see an art lawyer later today.
> > > >
> > > > all the best,
> > > > Joy
> > > >
> > > > http://www.firstpulseprojects.net
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > +
> > > > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > > > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > > > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> > > > +
> > > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > > > Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> > >
> > > +
> > > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> > > +
> > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> > >
> >
> >
> > +
> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
other than lawrence lessig's I mean. or perhaps there's one out there and
I haven't seen it?
btw here's a funny last paragraph to my monthly horoscope, tee hee:
"That silver wanderer, the moon, is new on the 20th in Pisces and this an
auspicious time for travel and revelation of a philosophical or
metaphysical sort, and if thinking about litigation issues and rights,
this is a time to get heard successfully."
indeed!
best,
j
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Pall Thayer wrote:
> Communication? Isn't that where the term 'commie' came from?;)
>
> I'm sure you have nothing to worry about and when it's all over you can turn
> around and sue them for causing you grief and emotional distress.
>
> Maybe we should all have our lawyers post to the list for us from now on.
> Highly self-destructive behaviour this.
>
> Pall Thayer
> artist/teacher
> Fjolbrautaskolinn vid Armula
> http://www.this.is/pallit
> http://www.this.is/pallit/isjs
> http://www.this.is/pallit/harmony
> http://130.208.220.190/panse
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joy Garnett" <joyeria@walrus.com>
> To: "Pall Thayer" <palli@pallit.lhi.is>
> Cc: <list@rhizome.org>
> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 3:33 PM
> Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: I am a pirate ?!
>
>
> > funny Pall, good point: I'd simply email the artist about the work in
> > question and have a conversation. it's called c-o-m-m-u-n-i-c-a-t-i-o-n,
> > right? anyway, I was just told by a photo curator I know that this
> > photojournalist and her lawyer (yah, both are women) are well-known for
> > being horrible bitches from hell. looks like I'm stuck with a couple of
> > winners...
> >
> > thanks much for the fair use link. I can't tell you how good it feels to
> > have a fair use champion lawyer backing me.
> >
> > stay tuned,
> > Joy
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Pall Thayer wrote:
> >
> > > Probably the reason they're not asking you for money is that from the
> sound
> > > of it you could come up with a pretty good "fair use" argument and they
> > > wouldn't get any money anyway out of a costly lawsuit.
> > >
> > > http://fairuse.stanford.edu/
> > >
> > > Since the photographer has obviously already talked to his lawyer, he's
> > > probably aware of this and if you were in a similar position and all you
> > > wanted was credit, would you do it through your lawyer?
> > >
> > > Pall Thayer
> > > artist/teacher
> > > Fjolbrautaskolinn vid Armula
> > > http://www.this.is/pallit
> > > http://www.this.is/pallit/isjs
> > > http://www.this.is/pallit/harmony
> > > http://130.208.220.190/panse
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Joy Garnett" <joyeria@walrus.com>
> > > To: <list@rhizome.org>
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 6:22 PM
> > > Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: I am a pirate ?!
> > >
> > >
> > > > friends,
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > To my mind of course my derivative artwork has very little to do with
> the
> > > > original photo. First of all it's a painting; it also happens to be
> > > > 6-feet tall and rather decontextualized from whatever its original
> context
> > > > was. And it's wildly cropped and brushy and all that painterly stuff.
> But
> > > > apparently the use of a different medium doesn't make it any more
> > > > justifyable to "derive" under the present copyright law.
> > > >
> > > > how did the plaintif find out about it? I was ratted out by a supposed
> > > > friend, also a photojournalist, who recognized the image--they stick
> > > > together. also: the painting was in my solo show that just came down
> last
> > > > week; the image was used for my announcement card and is on the
> gallery's
> > > > and my websites. The show was reviewed in the New Yorker and the
> > > > derivative artwork in question was praised. Basically I'm screwed in
> > > > terms of wanting to fight it--the plaintif is wholly within their
> rights.
> > > >
> > > > Here's the thing: for all that my dander is up, the plaintiff is being
> > > > pretty cool considering their permissions-centered world-view:
> > > > they are basically asking only that I supply a credit line, and that I
> ask
> > > > for permission in writing to exhibit/reproduce in the future. They
> don't
> > > > want $$ for this particular infringement. basically they chose to
> license
> > > > the image to me for my exhibition after the fact. It seems reasonable
> and
> > > > rather decent.
> > > >
> > > > However being sued does bring up the whole issue for me in a weird
> way. I
> > > > mean, my work is ABOUT the fact that images are uncontrollable
> entities.
> > > > It's about what happens when you remove context and framing devices.
> > > > my work is derivative by definition, and thoroughly reflective of this
> age
> > > > of sampling and remixing. This will no doubt happen to me again. And
> > > although
> > > > the permissions people--photojournalists, the recording industry, etc.
> > > > --are fighting a losing battle, you can bet they are going to fight
> til
> > > > the death. I may be getting off easy this time, but it seems that when
> > > > your aquaintances lie and then turn you in for copyright infringement,
> > > > the climate of creativity--not to mention general decency--is in
> serious
> > > > danger.
> > > >
> > > > I see an art lawyer later today.
> > > >
> > > > all the best,
> > > > Joy
> > > >
> > > > http://www.firstpulseprojects.net
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > +
> > > > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > > > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > > > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> > > > +
> > > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > > > Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> > >
> > > +
> > > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> > > +
> > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> > >
> >
> >
> > +
> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
Re: I am a pirate ?!
oh gawd tim -- I am SO ready to cough up names -- but I'm going to
excersize some restraint... at least for now. I have to wait and see how
they respond to my formal response, which I send out tomorrow. I'm taking
the high road; politeness is one of the best defences, not to mention
offences. we'll see what happens.
best,
joy
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, t.whid wrote:
> Y. This is totally f'd up. I hate people.
>
> Drop some names Joy, drop some names ;-)
>
> btw, once I was briefed by a lawyer concerning copyright (at my day
> gig) and it was incredibly slippery and seemingly subjective sort of
> thing. Figuring it out almost seems to be an art in itself.
>
> Of course Lessig's lecture around CC is fascinating IMO. We in NYC were
> lucky to have Eyebeam host a panel on which he spoke.
>
> good luck Joy, don't give that bee-yatch no credit!
>
>
> On Feb 27, 2004, at 10:33 AM, Joy Garnett wrote:
>
> > funny Pall, good point: I'd simply email the artist about the work in
> > question and have a conversation. it's called
> > c-o-m-m-u-n-i-c-a-t-i-o-n,
> > right? anyway, I was just told by a photo curator I know that this
> > photojournalist and her lawyer (yah, both are women) are well-known for
> > being horrible bitches from hell. looks like I'm stuck with a couple of
> > winners...
> >
> > thanks much for the fair use link. I can't tell you how good it feels
> > to
> > have a fair use champion lawyer backing me.
> >
> > stay tuned,
> > Joy
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Pall Thayer wrote:
> >
> >> Probably the reason they're not asking you for money is that from the
> >> sound
> >> of it you could come up with a pretty good "fair use" argument and
> >> they
> >> wouldn't get any money anyway out of a costly lawsuit.
> >>
> >> http://fairuse.stanford.edu/
> >>
> >> Since the photographer has obviously already talked to his lawyer,
> >> he's
> >> probably aware of this and if you were in a similar position and all
> >> you
> >> wanted was credit, would you do it through your lawyer?
> >>
> >>> friends,
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> To my mind of course my derivative artwork has very little to do
> >>> with the
> >>> original photo. First of all it's a painting; it also happens to be
> >>> 6-feet tall and rather decontextualized from whatever its original
> >>> context
> >>> was. And it's wildly cropped and brushy and all that painterly
> >>> stuff. But
> >>> apparently the use of a different medium doesn't make it any more
> >>> justifyable to "derive" under the present copyright law.
> >>>
> >>> how did the plaintif find out about it? I was ratted out by a
> >>> supposed
> >>> friend, also a photojournalist, who recognized the image--they stick
> >>> together. also: the painting was in my solo show that just came down
> >>> last
> >>> week; the image was used for my announcement card and is on the
> >>> gallery's
> >>> and my websites. The show was reviewed in the New Yorker and the
> >>> derivative artwork in question was praised. Basically I'm screwed in
> >>> terms of wanting to fight it--the plaintif is wholly within their
> >>> rights.
> >>>
> >>> Here's the thing: for all that my dander is up, the plaintiff is
> >>> being
> >>> pretty cool considering their permissions-centered world-view:
> >>> they are basically asking only that I supply a credit line, and that
> >>> I ask
> >>> for permission in writing to exhibit/reproduce in the future. They
> >>> don't
> >>> want $$ for this particular infringement. basically they chose to
> >>> license
> >>> the image to me for my exhibition after the fact. It seems
> >>> reasonable and
> >>> rather decent.
> >>>
> >>> However being sued does bring up the whole issue for me in a weird
> >>> way. I
> >>> mean, my work is ABOUT the fact that images are uncontrollable
> >>> entities.
> >>> It's about what happens when you remove context and framing devices.
> >>> my work is derivative by definition, and thoroughly reflective of
> >>> this age
> >>> of sampling and remixing. This will no doubt happen to me again. And
> >> although
> >>> the permissions people--photojournalists, the recording industry,
> >>> etc.
> >>> --are fighting a losing battle, you can bet they are going to fight
> >>> til
> >>> the death. I may be getting off easy this time, but it seems that
> >>> when
> >>> your aquaintances lie and then turn you in for copyright
> >>> infringement,
> >>> the climate of creativity--not to mention general decency--is in
> >>> serious
> >>> danger.
> >>>
> >>> I see an art lawyer later today.
> >>>
> >>> all the best,
> >>> Joy
> >>>
> >>> http://www.firstpulseprojects.net
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> +
> >>> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> >>> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> >>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> >>> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> >>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> >>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> >>> +
> >>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> >>> Membership Agreement available online at
> >>> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >>
> >> +
> >> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> >> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> >> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> >> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> >> +
> >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> >> Membership Agreement available online at
> >> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >>
> >
> >
> > +
> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
> >
> >
>
> ===
> <twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
> ===
>
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
excersize some restraint... at least for now. I have to wait and see how
they respond to my formal response, which I send out tomorrow. I'm taking
the high road; politeness is one of the best defences, not to mention
offences. we'll see what happens.
best,
joy
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, t.whid wrote:
> Y. This is totally f'd up. I hate people.
>
> Drop some names Joy, drop some names ;-)
>
> btw, once I was briefed by a lawyer concerning copyright (at my day
> gig) and it was incredibly slippery and seemingly subjective sort of
> thing. Figuring it out almost seems to be an art in itself.
>
> Of course Lessig's lecture around CC is fascinating IMO. We in NYC were
> lucky to have Eyebeam host a panel on which he spoke.
>
> good luck Joy, don't give that bee-yatch no credit!
>
>
> On Feb 27, 2004, at 10:33 AM, Joy Garnett wrote:
>
> > funny Pall, good point: I'd simply email the artist about the work in
> > question and have a conversation. it's called
> > c-o-m-m-u-n-i-c-a-t-i-o-n,
> > right? anyway, I was just told by a photo curator I know that this
> > photojournalist and her lawyer (yah, both are women) are well-known for
> > being horrible bitches from hell. looks like I'm stuck with a couple of
> > winners...
> >
> > thanks much for the fair use link. I can't tell you how good it feels
> > to
> > have a fair use champion lawyer backing me.
> >
> > stay tuned,
> > Joy
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Pall Thayer wrote:
> >
> >> Probably the reason they're not asking you for money is that from the
> >> sound
> >> of it you could come up with a pretty good "fair use" argument and
> >> they
> >> wouldn't get any money anyway out of a costly lawsuit.
> >>
> >> http://fairuse.stanford.edu/
> >>
> >> Since the photographer has obviously already talked to his lawyer,
> >> he's
> >> probably aware of this and if you were in a similar position and all
> >> you
> >> wanted was credit, would you do it through your lawyer?
> >>
> >>> friends,
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> To my mind of course my derivative artwork has very little to do
> >>> with the
> >>> original photo. First of all it's a painting; it also happens to be
> >>> 6-feet tall and rather decontextualized from whatever its original
> >>> context
> >>> was. And it's wildly cropped and brushy and all that painterly
> >>> stuff. But
> >>> apparently the use of a different medium doesn't make it any more
> >>> justifyable to "derive" under the present copyright law.
> >>>
> >>> how did the plaintif find out about it? I was ratted out by a
> >>> supposed
> >>> friend, also a photojournalist, who recognized the image--they stick
> >>> together. also: the painting was in my solo show that just came down
> >>> last
> >>> week; the image was used for my announcement card and is on the
> >>> gallery's
> >>> and my websites. The show was reviewed in the New Yorker and the
> >>> derivative artwork in question was praised. Basically I'm screwed in
> >>> terms of wanting to fight it--the plaintif is wholly within their
> >>> rights.
> >>>
> >>> Here's the thing: for all that my dander is up, the plaintiff is
> >>> being
> >>> pretty cool considering their permissions-centered world-view:
> >>> they are basically asking only that I supply a credit line, and that
> >>> I ask
> >>> for permission in writing to exhibit/reproduce in the future. They
> >>> don't
> >>> want $$ for this particular infringement. basically they chose to
> >>> license
> >>> the image to me for my exhibition after the fact. It seems
> >>> reasonable and
> >>> rather decent.
> >>>
> >>> However being sued does bring up the whole issue for me in a weird
> >>> way. I
> >>> mean, my work is ABOUT the fact that images are uncontrollable
> >>> entities.
> >>> It's about what happens when you remove context and framing devices.
> >>> my work is derivative by definition, and thoroughly reflective of
> >>> this age
> >>> of sampling and remixing. This will no doubt happen to me again. And
> >> although
> >>> the permissions people--photojournalists, the recording industry,
> >>> etc.
> >>> --are fighting a losing battle, you can bet they are going to fight
> >>> til
> >>> the death. I may be getting off easy this time, but it seems that
> >>> when
> >>> your aquaintances lie and then turn you in for copyright
> >>> infringement,
> >>> the climate of creativity--not to mention general decency--is in
> >>> serious
> >>> danger.
> >>>
> >>> I see an art lawyer later today.
> >>>
> >>> all the best,
> >>> Joy
> >>>
> >>> http://www.firstpulseprojects.net
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> +
> >>> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> >>> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> >>> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> >>> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> >>> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> >>> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> >>> +
> >>> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> >>> Membership Agreement available online at
> >>> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >>
> >> +
> >> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> >> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> >> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> >> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> >> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> >> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> >> +
> >> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> >> Membership Agreement available online at
> >> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >>
> >
> >
> > +
> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
> >
> >
>
> ===
> <twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
> ===
>
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
Re: I am a pirate ?!
funny Pall, good point: I'd simply email the artist about the work in
question and have a conversation. it's called c-o-m-m-u-n-i-c-a-t-i-o-n,
right? anyway, I was just told by a photo curator I know that this
photojournalist and her lawyer (yah, both are women) are well-known for
being horrible bitches from hell. looks like I'm stuck with a couple of
winners...
thanks much for the fair use link. I can't tell you how good it feels to
have a fair use champion lawyer backing me.
stay tuned,
Joy
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Pall Thayer wrote:
> Probably the reason they're not asking you for money is that from the sound
> of it you could come up with a pretty good "fair use" argument and they
> wouldn't get any money anyway out of a costly lawsuit.
>
> http://fairuse.stanford.edu/
>
> Since the photographer has obviously already talked to his lawyer, he's
> probably aware of this and if you were in a similar position and all you
> wanted was credit, would you do it through your lawyer?
>
> Pall Thayer
> artist/teacher
> Fjolbrautaskolinn vid Armula
> http://www.this.is/pallit
> http://www.this.is/pallit/isjs
> http://www.this.is/pallit/harmony
> http://130.208.220.190/panse
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joy Garnett" <joyeria@walrus.com>
> To: <list@rhizome.org>
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 6:22 PM
> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: I am a pirate ?!
>
>
> > friends,
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > To my mind of course my derivative artwork has very little to do with the
> > original photo. First of all it's a painting; it also happens to be
> > 6-feet tall and rather decontextualized from whatever its original context
> > was. And it's wildly cropped and brushy and all that painterly stuff. But
> > apparently the use of a different medium doesn't make it any more
> > justifyable to "derive" under the present copyright law.
> >
> > how did the plaintif find out about it? I was ratted out by a supposed
> > friend, also a photojournalist, who recognized the image--they stick
> > together. also: the painting was in my solo show that just came down last
> > week; the image was used for my announcement card and is on the gallery's
> > and my websites. The show was reviewed in the New Yorker and the
> > derivative artwork in question was praised. Basically I'm screwed in
> > terms of wanting to fight it--the plaintif is wholly within their rights.
> >
> > Here's the thing: for all that my dander is up, the plaintiff is being
> > pretty cool considering their permissions-centered world-view:
> > they are basically asking only that I supply a credit line, and that I ask
> > for permission in writing to exhibit/reproduce in the future. They don't
> > want $$ for this particular infringement. basically they chose to license
> > the image to me for my exhibition after the fact. It seems reasonable and
> > rather decent.
> >
> > However being sued does bring up the whole issue for me in a weird way. I
> > mean, my work is ABOUT the fact that images are uncontrollable entities.
> > It's about what happens when you remove context and framing devices.
> > my work is derivative by definition, and thoroughly reflective of this age
> > of sampling and remixing. This will no doubt happen to me again. And
> although
> > the permissions people--photojournalists, the recording industry, etc.
> > --are fighting a losing battle, you can bet they are going to fight til
> > the death. I may be getting off easy this time, but it seems that when
> > your aquaintances lie and then turn you in for copyright infringement,
> > the climate of creativity--not to mention general decency--is in serious
> > danger.
> >
> > I see an art lawyer later today.
> >
> > all the best,
> > Joy
> >
> > http://www.firstpulseprojects.net
> >
> >
> > +
> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
question and have a conversation. it's called c-o-m-m-u-n-i-c-a-t-i-o-n,
right? anyway, I was just told by a photo curator I know that this
photojournalist and her lawyer (yah, both are women) are well-known for
being horrible bitches from hell. looks like I'm stuck with a couple of
winners...
thanks much for the fair use link. I can't tell you how good it feels to
have a fair use champion lawyer backing me.
stay tuned,
Joy
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Pall Thayer wrote:
> Probably the reason they're not asking you for money is that from the sound
> of it you could come up with a pretty good "fair use" argument and they
> wouldn't get any money anyway out of a costly lawsuit.
>
> http://fairuse.stanford.edu/
>
> Since the photographer has obviously already talked to his lawyer, he's
> probably aware of this and if you were in a similar position and all you
> wanted was credit, would you do it through your lawyer?
>
> Pall Thayer
> artist/teacher
> Fjolbrautaskolinn vid Armula
> http://www.this.is/pallit
> http://www.this.is/pallit/isjs
> http://www.this.is/pallit/harmony
> http://130.208.220.190/panse
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joy Garnett" <joyeria@walrus.com>
> To: <list@rhizome.org>
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 6:22 PM
> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: I am a pirate ?!
>
>
> > friends,
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > To my mind of course my derivative artwork has very little to do with the
> > original photo. First of all it's a painting; it also happens to be
> > 6-feet tall and rather decontextualized from whatever its original context
> > was. And it's wildly cropped and brushy and all that painterly stuff. But
> > apparently the use of a different medium doesn't make it any more
> > justifyable to "derive" under the present copyright law.
> >
> > how did the plaintif find out about it? I was ratted out by a supposed
> > friend, also a photojournalist, who recognized the image--they stick
> > together. also: the painting was in my solo show that just came down last
> > week; the image was used for my announcement card and is on the gallery's
> > and my websites. The show was reviewed in the New Yorker and the
> > derivative artwork in question was praised. Basically I'm screwed in
> > terms of wanting to fight it--the plaintif is wholly within their rights.
> >
> > Here's the thing: for all that my dander is up, the plaintiff is being
> > pretty cool considering their permissions-centered world-view:
> > they are basically asking only that I supply a credit line, and that I ask
> > for permission in writing to exhibit/reproduce in the future. They don't
> > want $$ for this particular infringement. basically they chose to license
> > the image to me for my exhibition after the fact. It seems reasonable and
> > rather decent.
> >
> > However being sued does bring up the whole issue for me in a weird way. I
> > mean, my work is ABOUT the fact that images are uncontrollable entities.
> > It's about what happens when you remove context and framing devices.
> > my work is derivative by definition, and thoroughly reflective of this age
> > of sampling and remixing. This will no doubt happen to me again. And
> although
> > the permissions people--photojournalists, the recording industry, etc.
> > --are fighting a losing battle, you can bet they are going to fight til
> > the death. I may be getting off easy this time, but it seems that when
> > your aquaintances lie and then turn you in for copyright infringement,
> > the climate of creativity--not to mention general decency--is in serious
> > danger.
> >
> > I see an art lawyer later today.
> >
> > all the best,
> > Joy
> >
> > http://www.firstpulseprojects.net
> >
> >
> > +
> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
new version of AAA now on line (fwd)
check it out!
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 12:28:30 +0100
From: Art Against Apathy <info@artagainstapathy.org>
To: info@artagainstapathy.org
Subject: new version of AAA now on line
At last the new version of Art Against Apathy is on line
http://www.artagainstapathy.org/
The downloadable PDF version of the magazine is also there by navigating through the menu
>get it >downloads
you can download and print out the new version, NUMERO UNO, or get the previous version, NUMBER ZERO as well.
enjoy!
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 12:28:30 +0100
From: Art Against Apathy <info@artagainstapathy.org>
To: info@artagainstapathy.org
Subject: new version of AAA now on line
At last the new version of Art Against Apathy is on line
http://www.artagainstapathy.org/
The downloadable PDF version of the magazine is also there by navigating through the menu
>get it >downloads
you can download and print out the new version, NUMERO UNO, or get the previous version, NUMBER ZERO as well.
enjoy!
Re: I am a pirate ?!
hey guys, thanks for the moral support. I just came back from the most
illuminating discussion with an art lawyer. all he does is art copyright
law, and he's a champion of fair use, very passionate, very much on the
side of artists and the 1st amendment, creative licence, sampling, etc. In
an hour and a half he had me giggling: apparently I'm not in violation.
Copyright law is more subtle and twisted than I imagined. This lawsuit is
KRAZY. The point now is to handle it as elegantly as possible.
There is something called "thin copyright" apparently: for example, when a
photojournalist snaps a photograph in the field, it is reportage. they may
have copyright over the image's technique, style and quality, but they
can't have copyright over the subjects and the event itself. Since my work
utilizes a small portion of the original image, decontextualizes it,
transforms it, and uses it to comment on both the generic type of event
(emotionally overextended men; Riots) and the openendedness of images in
media (warming to my theme) it doesn't count as a "derivative" work. So I
may be swashbuckling but apparently I'm no pirate. Will keep the list
apprised if it becomes interesting; looks like I'm about to enter the
legal fray. If and when it makes sense, I'll disclose names: the
plaintiff and the rat. WHy the hell not, right? Creeps!
And nicholas, feel free to screw around with my images. If you feel like
you may be stealing, (you'll only be liable once if I win this case!) give
me some scant credit line if only to assuage your guilt and stroke my
overwrought ego; if not, don't bother!
best,
Joy
illuminating discussion with an art lawyer. all he does is art copyright
law, and he's a champion of fair use, very passionate, very much on the
side of artists and the 1st amendment, creative licence, sampling, etc. In
an hour and a half he had me giggling: apparently I'm not in violation.
Copyright law is more subtle and twisted than I imagined. This lawsuit is
KRAZY. The point now is to handle it as elegantly as possible.
There is something called "thin copyright" apparently: for example, when a
photojournalist snaps a photograph in the field, it is reportage. they may
have copyright over the image's technique, style and quality, but they
can't have copyright over the subjects and the event itself. Since my work
utilizes a small portion of the original image, decontextualizes it,
transforms it, and uses it to comment on both the generic type of event
(emotionally overextended men; Riots) and the openendedness of images in
media (warming to my theme) it doesn't count as a "derivative" work. So I
may be swashbuckling but apparently I'm no pirate. Will keep the list
apprised if it becomes interesting; looks like I'm about to enter the
legal fray. If and when it makes sense, I'll disclose names: the
plaintiff and the rat. WHy the hell not, right? Creeps!
And nicholas, feel free to screw around with my images. If you feel like
you may be stealing, (you'll only be liable once if I win this case!) give
me some scant credit line if only to assuage your guilt and stroke my
overwrought ego; if not, don't bother!
best,
Joy