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>

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>
===

Attempting to get back to Dyske's original essay...

In a nutshell, Dyske's point is this: thinking of the art world as a
meritocracy is false as there is no objective basis on which to judge
the merit. Therefor art world success is based not on merit but on
subjective decisions by a few powerful opinion-makers in the art world
so let's stop kidding ourselves that successful artists are the best
artists.

Does that sum it up fairly?

If yes, I'll proceed, if no, could you put it in a nutshell Dyske?

===
<twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
===

On Feb 26, 2004, at 2:07 AM, curt cloninger wrote:
>
>
> Is such shifting, semi-commital rhetoric beneficial to the communities
> in which you're involved? To you personally? How so? Does it make
> sense in your daily life? Is it practically workable/defensible on a
> day to day basis? Does it endear you to your peers? Do they trust
> you because they know where you're coming from? Does it inspire you
> and fill you with passion? Do you enjoy the dialogue it engenders?
> Do you learn from it?

is this some weirdly (semi)-cloaked evangelism?

I've read Curt's stuff for years on this list and no one points to the
big elephant in the room: Curt believes in God (with the cap G).

So obviously he does believe in absolute truth (and beauty) because God
is that to him.

There's no use attempting to argue him into a relativistic viewpoint as
it would completely and utterly destroy his world-view and I don't
think many people have been talked into radical re-examinations of
their belief systems on an email list. (But on the other hand, perhaps
there have been, why not? right?)

Anyway,

he's a better debater than me so I gave up long ago (or attempted to)
;-)

===
<twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
===

On Feb 25, 2004, at 4:53 PM, curt cloninger wrote:

> MTAA are sarcastically attempting to define beauty as a scientific
> contstant (cf: http://www.thisisamagazine.com/issue_12.htm ). They
> should factor in the "appears in a number of art history books"
> criterion to their equation.

or, 'attempting sarcastically'?

hmmmmm. let's mull that over--

Anyway, glad you linked to that; didn't even know it was there.

(to do: put it on the resume)

Making art in our sleep again? Maybe.

But, it's probably M.River up to his old tricks: making stuff behind my
back.

(btw, are you talking about ICBC the 2nd story? It's by Andy Simionato.)

cya

===
<twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
===