Funny! We love comics with M***ey M**se in them!
Tom the Dancing Bug's website
Showing posts with label fair use. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fair use. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Saturday, May 10, 2008
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
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
Friday, May 9, 2008
Freenet Discussion
Hello All!
Just got a very interesting comment on The Freenet Philosophy from SuperForester Chucka Stone Designs:
Chucka Stone Designs said...
-Jackson"
This is a very sticky area. On one hand, we as informed citizens must be able to express our viewpoints and exercise our right to copy/parody existing works, but we must also be able to personally reward those artists whose work we see as valuable.
In other words, we need total anonymity mixed with personal accountability. Not easy bedfellows.
For instance, what if I decided to draw a comic book that featured Mickey Mouse as the main character? According to the Bill of Rights, I should be allowed to do this.
So, I draw my comic, and have Mickey saying and doing things that perhaps are distasteful to Mickey's parent company. Should I be allowed to sell this work?
I think I should be.
Should Disney be compensated by my use of their mouse?
I think they should be. I don't think they have to be, but I think it would be morally correct to offer them a slice of my "Renegade Mickey" comic book pie.
Okay, so I've made a work of art based on another work of art and am now in the process of offering a piece of the profits to the original owner.
Some vengeful soul decides that the piece I'm offering is not enough!
They hack my account, and change the percentage I was offering to Disney from, say, ten percent, to one hundred percent.
Now ALL profits from "Renegade Mickey" are going directly to Disney, and I, the artist of the property am seeing none of it.
Is this right?
Some would say: "Absolutely, you stole from them and are simply getting what you deserve."
Others would say: "No way, no ideas form in a vacuum, and everything is based on an earlier, less-refined incarnation. You should be allowed to profit from your work."
Sticky, sticky, sticky.
What, morally, is the difference between putting Michelangelo's Pieta on a t-shirt and putting Renegade Mickey on a t-shirt? Both original artists are long dead.
And what morally is the difference between just making one shirt and wearing it around town, and making 100,000 shirts and selling them online?
Is there a difference?
And what if I personally did not make any money from the sale of the Renegade Mickey t-shirts? Perhaps I simply routed all proceeds to a woman's shelter, or homeless youth outreach, or Club Penguin (which is owned by Disney.)
Where exactly is the line here?
Either ideas/media is free to use once exposed to the zeitgeist, or it isn't.
Either one is legally obliged to compensate an artist whose work you are copying, or one isn't.
Should we be legally required to compensate for the use of ideas/media? If so, who should be doing the overseeing? And how does the overseeing take place? Who has the right to oversee everything you or I create?
Remember: You cannot copyright an idea. You can only copyright the form that that idea takes.
So Disney can copyright Mickey Mouse, but if I draw Mickey Mouse, then that Mickey is mine.
And If I draw Mickey doing things that Disney feels is unsavory, then tough, it is my First Amendment right to do so.
Here's a copy of the 1st Amendment: (which I copied from usconstitution.net)
"Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
If I want to draw Mickey Mouse getting drunk and swearing, I can do it. If I want to sell copies of that image, I can do it. If Disney has a problem with it, it's well within their rights to express dismay, or outrage, but they cannot legally stop me from expressing myself, or from profiting from that expression.
So, to Chucka Stone Designs, if someone wants to copy your art and profit from that, they are expressly allowed to by our beloved constitution. They might be jerks for doing it, but you are then within your right to point out to the entire world (via the internet) what jerks they are, how your original art is superior to their knock-offs, and to use the friction of experience to create further media.
Democracy demands that we are able to freely parody and criticize. And since the line between parody and complete copying is such a grey one, we must allow that all copying is a form of parody.
This is the difference between the movie Tron, and the sweded version of the movie Tron.
Here's the original lightcycle scene:
And the sweded version:
Interesting, no? One is a shot for shot copy of the other, and yet their difference is unmistakable and undeniable.
I must be able to draw Renegade Mickey without fear of reprisal from Disney or fear of someone assuming my identity and using it to wreak havok.
We as citizen caretakers of Democracy must be able to express ourselves without fear of reprisal, whatever form that expression takes.
That is the very essence of Democracy. To decry it is to object to all that makes America the incredible place it is.
What are your thoughts on this?
Love to all,
Team SuperForest
Special thanks to Chucka Stone Designs for prompting this discussion, to Walt Disney and his collaborators for creating such compelling and timeless works of art, and to the creators of the U.S. Constitution, which is a masterpiece.
This discussion was prompted by the release of Freenet 0.7, an application that allows the user total web anonymity, and by Air Pirate Funnies, a 1971 comic book that featured among other things, Mickey and Minnie Mouse consummating their relationship while in prison and dabbling in illegal drug use.
Just got a very interesting comment on The Freenet Philosophy from SuperForester Chucka Stone Designs:
Chucka Stone Designs said...
"I am an artist. I fiercely protect the work I do as my own because it is how I make my living. Without that "stamp" how would anyone know that I am an artist? Furthermore, without that "stamp" how would anyone know I am the artist who created the "work they enjoy"? I, as a person am not for sale even though my work is."
I totally agree. Here is my response:
Jackson said...
A very good point.
As technology progresses, we will be constantly re-evaluating older ways of doing things. The internet has for the first time in history provided us with a means for the transmission of ideas/media from person to person, with little or no accountability to the original creators of the ideas/media.
So in this brave new world, how can we ensure that our artists are compensated for their creations?
As the internet has shown, there simply is no way to ensure this...
This is why we at SuperForest try to approach the idea of "environmentalism" from a moral stance, i.e. is is impolite to use/copy an artists work without offering some form of recompense.
If I may ask, what is your art form? How are you compensated for it now? What would you do if you found out that someone was copying your work and selling it?
Would your response be different if the pirateer were another individual artist, or a large company?
This is a fascinating discussion and I would love to know more.
-Jackson"
This is a very sticky area. On one hand, we as informed citizens must be able to express our viewpoints and exercise our right to copy/parody existing works, but we must also be able to personally reward those artists whose work we see as valuable.
In other words, we need total anonymity mixed with personal accountability. Not easy bedfellows.
For instance, what if I decided to draw a comic book that featured Mickey Mouse as the main character? According to the Bill of Rights, I should be allowed to do this.
So, I draw my comic, and have Mickey saying and doing things that perhaps are distasteful to Mickey's parent company. Should I be allowed to sell this work?
I think I should be.
Should Disney be compensated by my use of their mouse?
I think they should be. I don't think they have to be, but I think it would be morally correct to offer them a slice of my "Renegade Mickey" comic book pie.
Okay, so I've made a work of art based on another work of art and am now in the process of offering a piece of the profits to the original owner.
Some vengeful soul decides that the piece I'm offering is not enough!
They hack my account, and change the percentage I was offering to Disney from, say, ten percent, to one hundred percent.
Now ALL profits from "Renegade Mickey" are going directly to Disney, and I, the artist of the property am seeing none of it.
Is this right?
Some would say: "Absolutely, you stole from them and are simply getting what you deserve."
Others would say: "No way, no ideas form in a vacuum, and everything is based on an earlier, less-refined incarnation. You should be allowed to profit from your work."
Sticky, sticky, sticky.
What, morally, is the difference between putting Michelangelo's Pieta on a t-shirt and putting Renegade Mickey on a t-shirt? Both original artists are long dead.
And what morally is the difference between just making one shirt and wearing it around town, and making 100,000 shirts and selling them online?
Is there a difference?
And what if I personally did not make any money from the sale of the Renegade Mickey t-shirts? Perhaps I simply routed all proceeds to a woman's shelter, or homeless youth outreach, or Club Penguin (which is owned by Disney.)
Where exactly is the line here?
Either ideas/media is free to use once exposed to the zeitgeist, or it isn't.
Either one is legally obliged to compensate an artist whose work you are copying, or one isn't.
Should we be legally required to compensate for the use of ideas/media? If so, who should be doing the overseeing? And how does the overseeing take place? Who has the right to oversee everything you or I create?
Remember: You cannot copyright an idea. You can only copyright the form that that idea takes.
So Disney can copyright Mickey Mouse, but if I draw Mickey Mouse, then that Mickey is mine.
And If I draw Mickey doing things that Disney feels is unsavory, then tough, it is my First Amendment right to do so.
Here's a copy of the 1st Amendment: (which I copied from usconstitution.net)
"Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
There you have it.If I want to draw Mickey Mouse getting drunk and swearing, I can do it. If I want to sell copies of that image, I can do it. If Disney has a problem with it, it's well within their rights to express dismay, or outrage, but they cannot legally stop me from expressing myself, or from profiting from that expression.
So, to Chucka Stone Designs, if someone wants to copy your art and profit from that, they are expressly allowed to by our beloved constitution. They might be jerks for doing it, but you are then within your right to point out to the entire world (via the internet) what jerks they are, how your original art is superior to their knock-offs, and to use the friction of experience to create further media.
Democracy demands that we are able to freely parody and criticize. And since the line between parody and complete copying is such a grey one, we must allow that all copying is a form of parody.
This is the difference between the movie Tron, and the sweded version of the movie Tron.
Here's the original lightcycle scene:
And the sweded version:
Interesting, no? One is a shot for shot copy of the other, and yet their difference is unmistakable and undeniable.
I must be able to draw Renegade Mickey without fear of reprisal from Disney or fear of someone assuming my identity and using it to wreak havok.
We as citizen caretakers of Democracy must be able to express ourselves without fear of reprisal, whatever form that expression takes.
That is the very essence of Democracy. To decry it is to object to all that makes America the incredible place it is.
What are your thoughts on this?
Love to all,
Team SuperForest
Special thanks to Chucka Stone Designs for prompting this discussion, to Walt Disney and his collaborators for creating such compelling and timeless works of art, and to the creators of the U.S. Constitution, which is a masterpiece.
This discussion was prompted by the release of Freenet 0.7, an application that allows the user total web anonymity, and by Air Pirate Funnies, a 1971 comic book that featured among other things, Mickey and Minnie Mouse consummating their relationship while in prison and dabbling in illegal drug use.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
