(Untitled)

May 31, 2008 20:16


Read more... )

news, rants

Leave a comment

Comments 29

(The comment has been removed)

fabianwhig June 1 2008, 03:15:23 UTC

in a culture that is still hopelessly eager to defame, destroy or ban any material that clashes with society's ideals.

Art world is what it is, no? Anyway, there is a long tradition of this sort of thing... starting with Dada, and maybe before that, although no one took it seriously until Dada.

Reply


theclamsman June 1 2008, 00:50:24 UTC

Isn't it part of the legend why Hitler became so pissy (against Jews in particular) was because people dissed his artwork? So wouldn't this just amplify the original sentiment that drove Hitler towards his hatred of certain peoples?

Defacing any art makes me want to see the vandals die slow deaths...

Reply

fabianwhig June 1 2008, 03:13:31 UTC
Defacing any art makes me want to see the vandals die slow deaths...

Can't call them vandals if they owned the work... but we can call them culturally destructive idiots.

Reply

snowowl June 1 2008, 05:19:13 UTC
They didn't purchase copyright, as far as I know. Artists often sell original works but hardly ever sell the copyright to give the customer the right to either alter the work or claim it as their own or make money off of reproductions from the original. I'm not sure about this case because the artist is dead and we're dealing with foreign copyright laws (although they are usually almost verbatim). But you understand how it is a case of vandalism if they are defacing art that they do not have full copyright to alter.

Reply

fabianwhig June 1 2008, 12:48:32 UTC
I am aware of the vagueness of copyright law, I also think copyright law is currently one of the most UNlibertarian legal areas.

I'm not sure about this case because the artist is dead...

Generally someone would have had to purchase the copyright from the estate and actively extend, or the limitations would kick it and the copyright would be public domain.

Reply


mlfoley June 1 2008, 01:21:30 UTC
Ah, if this were not friends only, I'd so link to it. Perfect commentary.

Reply

snowowl June 1 2008, 05:25:55 UTC
Making it non-FL now. :)

Reply


guns_of_dawn June 1 2008, 01:56:10 UTC
...OMG they bought something and then did what they wanted with it? I thought that was kind of the point of the right to property?

Reply

sergeantbrother June 1 2008, 02:13:42 UTC
Nobody's ever exercised their rights in a way that pissed you off before?

Reply

fabianwhig June 1 2008, 03:12:46 UTC
Exactly, just because you have the RIGHT to do something, doesn't mean you should, or you should get away without social cost for doing so...

Reply

snowowl June 1 2008, 05:23:49 UTC
Maybe you should educate yourself about artistic copyright before being snarky. For example, you could buy a photo of mine, the "negative" (or digital equivalent) even but that would not give you the right to alter the art or claim it as your own unless I gave express permission for you to do so. Since the artist is in this case deceased, he cannot give that permission. There might be a provision for that in foreign copyright law (it's my understanding these were bought overseas) but if tehre is, I haven't heard of it.

Edited to clarify, since it's late: What I mean is that just because you buy a piece of work (even for a steep price) you are merely buying the right to hang it in your house and that's it. In 99% of cases you are not buying the full copyright to do to it what you wish. Unless foreign copyright laws are vastly different, the only way they would have the "right" to do this if the original 13 owners had a transfer of copyright from Hitler while he was alive. I doubt that is the case. They are just hedging their bets ( ... )

Reply


fabianwhig June 1 2008, 03:10:39 UTC
Actually this sort of nonsense passing as art is older than even Batman, blame Dada. I do.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up