joy garnett
Since the beginning
Works in United States of America

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/

Discussions (685) Opportunities (5) Events (8) Jobs (0)
DISCUSSION

NEWSgrist: *ILYSE SOUTINE: Then Is Now* + The Grey Album, RSS feeds, Naked Power & more...


NEWSgrist: *ILYSE SOUTINE: Then Is Now* + The Grey Album,
RSS feeds, Naked Power & more...
============================
============================
NEWSgrist
where spin is art
http://newsgrist.net
{bi-weekly news digest}
free e-subscriptions:
http://www.newsgrist.net/subscribe.html
subscribe // unsubscribe
============================
Vol.5, no.2 (Mar 1, 2004)
============================
*Underbelly*

Bulletin board: post your own news, press releases, urls:
http://pub11.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: I am a pirate ?!


Art history (and general cultural history) are narratives of
appropriation. Without eavesdropping, gossip, war, stealing, invasion,
piracy, etc., there would be no cross-fertilization, no cultural
development or creative efflorescence as we know it (ok, a loose bad
re-cap of Manuel Delanda, 1000 Years of Nonlinear History").

the concept of "authorship" is relatively recent. the Golden Age of the
web (now over?) offered a utopian vision that strove to wipe out the
rickety concept of author as we knew it; instead, something more profound
is taking place: a struggle to understand and redefine these coexisting
yet conflicting principles of authorship, originality, and recombinant
creativity. It's really a very passionate time...

J

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, Pall Thayer wrote:

> This post is just downright absurd. The things you are talking about are
> things that one would consider if one planned to publish someone elses work
> (in its orginal form) and make money off it. Like when Barnes and Nobles
> publishes a collection of the works of Lewis Carroll. The work is in the
> public domain so they are aloud to publish and sell it and don't even have
> to pay royalties. What's done in the arts is entirely different and the
> differences go beyond legal definitions.
>
> You're comparing apples to oranges.
>
>
> 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: "Niall Flaherty" <flahertyniall@eircom.net>
> To: <list@rhizome.org>
> Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 2:40 AM
> Subject: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: I am a pirate ?!
>
>
> > Yes, you are a pirate... but worse.
> > You are bloody un-generous for someone who bases all her paintings on the
> work of others. They're not dead Joy, their work is not in the public realm
> (though unlike yourself I haven't made a great study of the legal). Would it
> really be too difficult to ask first?
> >
> > It's just a thought.
> > Disregard as you do the rights of fellow artists.
> > +
> > -> 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
>

DISCUSSION

Re: Re: I am a pirate ?!


thank you tim. that was very generous of you.

;)

j

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004, twhid wrote:

> clueless. you are clueless.
>
> First, if you read her posts you would know that she found this
> particular image on the web unattributed and already cropped. So yes,
> it would have been much to difficult to ask first.
>
> Second, she didn't take the image from an artist, she took it from a
> journalist. But so what. Everything is open game IMO.
>
> Third, your characterization of Joy basing her paintings on the work of
> others.. Well, I don't know what what to make of that. Everybody bases
> everything on the work of others. Whoever painted that first vase of
> flowers is surely owed a lots of money.
>
> And how is she being ungenerous? She's the one being sued after all.
>
> I encourage Joy to disregard your little 'thought'. It's worthless.
>
> have a nice day.
>
> On Feb 28, 2004, at 9:40 PM, Niall Flaherty wrote:
>
> > Yes, you are a pirate... but worse.
> > You are bloody un-generous for someone who bases all her paintings on
> > the work of others. They're not dead Joy, their work is not in the
> > public realm (though unlike yourself I haven't made a great study of
> > the legal). Would it really be too difficult to ask first?
> >
> > It's just a thought.
> > Disregard as you do the rights of fellow artists.
> --
> <t.whid>
> www.mteww.com
> </t.whid>
>
> +
> -> 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
>

DISCUSSION

Re: I am a pirate ?!


thanks so much rachel -- actually, my shock has passed, and among the good
things to come out of this are the many supportive emails I've receiveed
with useful stories, legal advice, and fair use info; nice to feel
supported when you've been accused of stealing! also, now that
I've been forced to, I'm actually learning something about copyright
infringement. I feel so relieved that I am not in violation; I had just
assumed that I was, even though it was by accident. The lesson is never
assume anything!

as for prince and levine, they've been sued, probably often; raushenberg
was constantly in court. barbara kruger, hans haacke-- they are probbaly
experts themselves on the ins and outs of this. warhol, acccording to my
lawyer, only really got sued once; he was operating in a different era
afterall.

the remarkable thing I learned during our consultation is how much suing
goes on in the realm of visual arts. The music industry has a higher
profile, but there seems to be just as much angry and passionate
litigation going on in the art world. He showed me some examples of what
does and doesn't constitute infringement -- some of the cases even
involved aquaintances of mine! It's all so crazy really.

but the good news, according to this guy, is that since the debacle of
the Koons puppies, the courts have been ruling much closer to what we, the
fair use krewe, would want. he says there is cause for optimism among
artists.

whew! I'm going to go home and go to sleep now. what a long week!

best,
joy

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Rachel Greene wrote:

> Joy -- Good luck with all this.
>
> I saw your amazing painting show and am so surprised to learn that it
> was somehow illegal for you to derive a work, loosely, from a
> photograph. What about Richter's famous October 77 series? He doesn't
> acknowledge the photographer who took the news photos of Gudrun Esslin
> et al. Perhaps German law is different on this count. But what about
> Richard Prince or Sherrie Levine? Anyway, just riffing because I am in
> shock. Please keep me posted on what happens. -- Rachel
>
>
> On Feb 27, 2004, at 3:07 PM, Joy Garnett wrote:
>
> > Mm, Lee, interesting:
> >
> > actually this person--it's a woman btw--has nothing to gain by this.
> > She's already world-famous--fanTASTically, ridiculously famous in fact.
> > She gains everything by having this remain private. Actually, she
> > really
> > made a mistake, since her claim is spurious and I'm not at all
> > infringing
> > upon her copyright, as I have recently come to understand. It's all
> > about
> > control; it's not about fairness or anything like that. And because I'm
> > going to stand my ground. It's so not worth her while no matter how
> > it's
> > sliced.
> >
> > The thing is, I never seek famous photographs to rip off or derive
> > (that
> > would be an entirely different project) -- I only want little-seen,
> > unknown, hopefully anonymous ones. And then I change them in different
> > degrees: ripping away their context; replacing their narrative with
> > mine, etc. The idea behind it doesn't originate with the found work.
> >
> > In the case of this photo, I had found a detail of it, uncredited,
> > pirated
> > on a website. Had I known it was a "seminal" work I wouldn't have gone
> > near it because it doesn't serve my concept.
> >
> > what it really comes down to is this: photojournalists produce
> > reportage--they may fall closer to fine art photography than do
> > commercial
> > photographers, but they are still recording events as opposed to
> > constructing them (the "construction" comes later, with publishing, re-
> > contextualizations, spin, etc.). Because they go out to war-torn
> > regions
> > often risking life and limb to tell a story, they tend to feel they
> > occupy
> > the moral high ground. But otoh they also--especially this woman--
> > must rely on the willingness of "the natives" to be photographed. Do
> > these
> > people/subjects get anything from this? Hard to say. so, this person
> > has
> > made a career from photographing poor people and dying and dead and
> > exploding people and basically indigent disenfranchized people in the
> > field. The reporter is supposed to be telling someone else's story--not
> > trying to own it.
> >
> > anyway, I haven't stolen this person's thunder (this image was taken in
> > 1978!). And I've decided to agree to an abridged credit line, out of
> > courtesy. But as Pall pointed out, she could have emailed me and asked
> > for
> > it. Instead, she's committed an act of aggression against an unknown
> > artist who occupies an entirely different market and artworld, who
> > happens
> > to be excersizing their first amendment rights.
> >
> > The most interesting thing you say--the one that makes me smile a LOT
> > and
> > would make any photojournalist cringe--is "its all popart to me
> > anyways."
> >
> > I love it!
> >
> > best,
> > Joy
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Lee Wells wrote:
> >
> >> Ride this thing a little bit and it could be some good attention for
> >> the both of you. Get you to the next level and re-ignite his
> >> career....
> >> but now that you know the individual that shot the photo is an artist
> >> as well, he deserves the credit for being the one with the balls to
> >> be
> >> shooting photos in a riot situation. I don't know if you have tried it
> >> before but when there is a lot going on ...i.e. cops, scared kids,
> >> black blockers and regulars. and your main concentration is on getting
> >> the perfect photo (just like the one in your painting) its easy to get
> >> caught up in the crossfire. I think you created a one of a kind
> >> artwork
> >> based on his photograph. its all popart to me anyways. His photograph
> >> is just a bit more real.
> >>
> >> Keep doing what you are doing.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Lee
> >>
> >>
> >> On Friday, February 27, 2004, at 10:26 AM, Joy Garnett wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> +
> >>> -> 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >> _________
> >>
> >> Lee A Wells
> >> mobile: 917 723 2524
> >> studio: 718 349 7951
> >>
> >> lee@leewells.org
> >> http://www.leewells.org
> >>
> >> +
> >> -> 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
> >
>

DISCUSSION

Re: I am a pirate ?!


Mm, Lee, interesting:

actually this person--it's a woman btw--has nothing to gain by this.
She's already world-famous--fanTASTically, ridiculously famous in fact.
She gains everything by having this remain private. Actually, she really
made a mistake, since her claim is spurious and I'm not at all infringing
upon her copyright, as I have recently come to understand. It's all about
control; it's not about fairness or anything like that. And because I'm
going to stand my ground. It's so not worth her while no matter how it's
sliced.

The thing is, I never seek famous photographs to rip off or derive (that
would be an entirely different project) -- I only want little-seen,
unknown, hopefully anonymous ones. And then I change them in different
degrees: ripping away their context; replacing their narrative with
mine, etc. The idea behind it doesn't originate with the found work.

In the case of this photo, I had found a detail of it, uncredited, pirated
on a website. Had I known it was a "seminal" work I wouldn't have gone
near it because it doesn't serve my concept.

what it really comes down to is this: photojournalists produce
reportage--they may fall closer to fine art photography than do commercial
photographers, but they are still recording events as opposed to
constructing them (the "construction" comes later, with publishing, re-
contextualizations, spin, etc.). Because they go out to war-torn regions
often risking life and limb to tell a story, they tend to feel they occupy
the moral high ground. But otoh they also--especially this woman--
must rely on the willingness of "the natives" to be photographed. Do these
people/subjects get anything from this? Hard to say. so, this person has
made a career from photographing poor people and dying and dead and
exploding people and basically indigent disenfranchized people in the
field. The reporter is supposed to be telling someone else's story--not
trying to own it.

anyway, I haven't stolen this person's thunder (this image was taken in
1978!). And I've decided to agree to an abridged credit line, out of
courtesy. But as Pall pointed out, she could have emailed me and asked for
it. Instead, she's committed an act of aggression against an unknown
artist who occupies an entirely different market and artworld, who happens
to be excersizing their first amendment rights.

The most interesting thing you say--the one that makes me smile a LOT and
would make any photojournalist cringe--is "its all popart to me anyways."

I love it!

best,
Joy

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Lee Wells wrote:

> Ride this thing a little bit and it could be some good attention for
> the both of you. Get you to the next level and re-ignite his career....
> but now that you know the individual that shot the photo is an artist
> as well, he deserves the credit for being the one with the balls to be
> shooting photos in a riot situation. I don't know if you have tried it
> before but when there is a lot going on ...i.e. cops, scared kids,
> black blockers and regulars. and your main concentration is on getting
> the perfect photo (just like the one in your painting) its easy to get
> caught up in the crossfire. I think you created a one of a kind artwork
> based on his photograph. its all popart to me anyways. His photograph
> is just a bit more real.
>
> Keep doing what you are doing.
>
> Cheers,
> Lee
>
>
> On Friday, February 27, 2004, at 10:26 AM, Joy Garnett wrote:
>
> > 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
> >>
> >
> > +
> > -> 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
> >
> >
> _________
>
> Lee A Wells
> mobile: 917 723 2524
> studio: 718 349 7951
>
> lee@leewells.org
> http://www.leewells.org
>
> +
> -> 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
>