Freenet Discussion Pt. 2!

Morning All,

For those of you who've been following, a very interesting discussion is taking place about the nature of personal ownership, parody, outright copying, the responsibility of an artist to protect his or her work, and what exactly the nature of that protection should be.

In response to my response:

Chucka Stone Designs said...

"Whew! Just got through reading your follow up post and you raise very many interesting and valid questions. One thing I will say in rebuttal to your stance below your comment is Vanilla Ice and David Bowie (yes I know this was also Queen, to save space I am going to refer to the artist in question as simply Bowie from here on out). No one who was a child of the 80’s will ever forget Ice saying something to the effect of ‘his goes…but ours goes…’ with regard to Bowie’s Under Pressure and his Ice, Ice, Baby intro similarities. If it should be legal and within Ice’s right to parody Bowie’s work because as an artist he sees the beauty in the sound, they why did Bowie feel the need to make a big deal out of it, which in turn had Ice conceding to note Bowie as a writer of the song. Now Bowie never filed a lawsuit (admitting its legality here), he just did what you have suggested:

'and to use the friction of experience to create further media'

Now here is the part where it gets tricky. Ice sells a bajillion copies of his album. Record sales for Bowie probably go up as well. Both artists become prominent for a moment. So why, when Ice has made a household name for himself from that one song, does that name become synonymous with laughter? I personally love the lyrics to that song, they were clever and catchy, and he should have been able to take the controversy and use it to propel himself but instead he fell flat. Was it his manager’s fault that they didn’t capitalize on the buzz or was it because he showed he was not so “original” after all that the public turned away from him?

Big time or small time the question is the same: How do you use the media frenzy to your best advantage when this happens to you? Here is my issue with this. You asked what I do. Well there are several things but I work as a faux finisher sometimes. Suppose I use my skill and talent to create a sample board that is the most amazing thing you have ever seen. I leave that board at a client’s home with my estimate to apply it and they request a few days to think about it. I say sure. In those few days they have their niece who sometimes paints come in and replicate my design for free. They then call me and say they changed their mind but would be happy to mail back my board. I do not have the resources as a one gal shop to go to their house to see if they used my design or not. I just have to trust they really changed their mind.

My hand did not create the work on their wall so as you say “technically” it is not my work (Ice) but it was my imagination and inspiration that came up with the design (Bowie). I am a faux finisher, my job is to replicate so how do I as an artist fight back against someone replicating my replication? Am I the first one to create that design? I’m quite sure the answer is no but would that client have put that exact finish in their home if I had not proposed it to begin with? Oh and since I am just a small time artist in a sea of many, what to do when there is no media frenzy to show mine as the original? Who is protecting the imaginative interests of a lone artist in this situation other than the artist? Is it even possible to really protect them?

Many interesting questions are raised through this topic indeed."

I couldn't agree more.
This topic raises a whole slew of further questions:

Is the term "piracy" just another way of saying: the unauthorized distribution of ideas?

And if so, who should regulate the distribution of ideas?

Personally, I feel that the onus of moral action should flow from the citizen base upwards to include our governing bodies.

The way things are structured now, morality seems to be derived from the laws that the government passes, i.e. a "top-down" approach.
This top-down approach is flawed in that "do as I say, not as I do," seems to prevail and hypocrisy becomes the standard.

Ultimately, morality must flow from the individual and cannot be regulated into effect. Top-down morality is what leads to the destruction of empires. Leaders and regulators are human, and as such are fallible.

So, the couple that would hire a lesser artist to ape Chucka's faux-finishing style should in their hearts know that what they've done is wrong, but they should not be culpable of any legal recourse.

After all, Chucka, who can do what you do as well as you do it?

Nobody can bring that "Chucka Stone Designs feeling" to their faux-finishing the way you can, just as someone impersonating Michael Jackson could never be Michael Jackson.

Your unique gifts as an artist are just that, and for someone to think that they can copy you and get the same value and level of artistic competency is folly.

You are Tron, and anything else would be sweded-Tron. If the couple is cool with sweded-Tron on their walls, fine.

This has been so interesting, and I cannot wait to discuss further!

Love to all,

Team SuperForest