Nina Paley is brilliant again, and makes a great point, though I know lots of people would debate the concept of Creative Commons. Still, she's an artist who lives on her earnings, so I think she should be heard:
Glad you liked it. She does great animation--sometime maybe you can see Sita Sings the Blues (http://www.sitasingstheblues.com/)--it's a bit much for my computer, but you might be able to see it online.
good lord, this is a complicated issue, and i can't say i know where i stand on it.
the statement that all artwork is derivative -yes, i agree with that. but derivative of what? of other art? not necessarily so. i mean, what were cave paintings derivative of?
also, i may be wrong about this, but i'm gleaning that she lives on her earnings as an artist because she is funded...this gets into a whole 'nother bag of ideas that have to do with privilege and class.
as a visual object, i don't care for this particular animation, tho i can see that it took a ton of work to make it. the other piece that you linked to in a comment, "sita sings the blues", looks better to me...i like how she mixes the sita figure with american jazz, just for starters. so i'm downloading that one now to watch when i have more time.
what do you think about this topic? i mean the creative commons idea and copyright issues?
I have mixed feelings about it too. The problem that she originially had (using recordings of a long-dead artist in "Sita" and being fined many thousands of dollars to use them because some recording company still had the rights) seemed messed up, and I know as a writer that it's really true that nothing is entirely original (it's all intertextual in a way). I once got into a really difficult negotiation when I was publishing a critical essay and wanted to quote about 200 words from a writer as part of my analysis of his style (oddly the problem came from my publisher--his own publisher couldn't believe I really had to ask for that). Beyond that, I can't think of much that I've read that doesn't in some way refer to or draw on something else that's been written. Last night's "House," for example, had a lot of references to the movie 9 to 5, starting with the title--and I really don't think they should have had to pay royalties for that.
On the other hand, people like you who put your creativity, hard work, and materials into your works certainly need to be able to profit from your creations. I did think "House" needed to pay royalties to the singers and music companies for the songs they played during the episode.
The question I can't resolve is exactly where to draw the line.
fining an individual artist for using such an old (and well known) song, is indeed messed up. on a much smaller scale, my friend sahar used to make videos. posted them online and woke up one day to discover that a number of his pieces had been removed from youtube for copyright infringement.
i don't understand all this stuff. how is it copyright infringement when you are writing an article about his work, and want to quote only 200 words? it's ridiculous!!!
in my own instance, i also create a body of work that i put out under a male pseudonym. i use old negatives, fragments of film i shot of famous paintings, etc...and have run in to difficulty, too.
it feels like copyright laws that were written to protect creative people, have been perverted somehow, and now protect companies.
I agree, all art owes a great debt to what has come before. It was in part what I was thinking of with this (someone made a very perceptive comment which I included in my notes on the piece): http://himmapaan.deviantart.com/art/Self-Portrait-111615256
Copyright is a finer matter though. Whilst having no restrictions on the re-use of artwork is a very noble idea, sadly there are unscrupulous people. Claiming something they did not create as theirs (seperate from drawing influences or even an acknowledged copy) and profiting from it is just morally not defensible.
Oh! I'd never seen that up close, nor read the notes. That is so moving.
But I think in your case the wings are really yours, with maybe a feather or two borrowed elsewhere. At least you help us fly when we see what you make!
There's definitely a difference between influence and stealing, and much as I like Paley and this animation, I think she's blurring the point. I agree with you more than with her, really (see my response above to siro_gravity.
That's terribly kind of you to think so. Thank you. There is another 'sub text', if you like, to those wings, too.
I saw your response to Siro Gravity (and that's another good point she made too about the extent of derivation). Yes, knowing where to draw the line is a tricky one.
ETA: Oh, and I just saw your extended conversation too.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
And love your icon, too.
From:
no subject
the statement that all artwork is derivative -yes, i agree with that. but derivative of what? of other art? not necessarily so. i mean, what were cave paintings derivative of?
also, i may be wrong about this, but i'm gleaning that she lives on her earnings as an artist because she is funded...this gets into a whole 'nother bag of ideas that have to do with privilege and class.
as a visual object, i don't care for this particular animation, tho i can see that it took a ton of work to make it. the other piece that you linked to in a comment, "sita sings the blues", looks better to me...i like how she mixes the sita figure with american jazz, just for starters. so i'm downloading that one now to watch when i have more time.
what do you think about this topic? i mean the creative commons idea and copyright issues?
From:
no subject
On the other hand, people like you who put your creativity, hard work, and materials into your works certainly need to be able to profit from your creations. I did think "House" needed to pay royalties to the singers and music companies for the songs they played during the episode.
The question I can't resolve is exactly where to draw the line.
From:
no subject
i don't understand all this stuff. how is it copyright infringement when you are writing an article about his work, and want to quote only 200 words? it's ridiculous!!!
in my own instance, i also create a body of work that i put out under a male pseudonym. i use old negatives, fragments of film i shot of famous paintings, etc...and have run in to difficulty, too.
it feels like copyright laws that were written to protect creative people, have been perverted somehow, and now protect companies.
From:
no subject
If there had been copyright holding companies in the time of TS Eliot or Picasso, we'd be missing a lot of great stuff.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I agree, all art owes a great debt to what has come before. It was in part what I was thinking of with this (someone made a very perceptive comment which I included in my notes on the piece): http://himmapaan.deviantart.com/art/Self-Portrait-111615256
Copyright is a finer matter though. Whilst having no restrictions on the re-use of artwork is a very noble idea, sadly there are unscrupulous people. Claiming something they did not create as theirs (seperate from drawing influences or even an acknowledged copy) and profiting from it is just morally not defensible.
From:
no subject
But I think in your case the wings are really yours, with maybe a feather or two borrowed elsewhere. At least you help us fly when we see what you make!
There's definitely a difference between influence and stealing, and much as I like Paley and this animation, I think she's blurring the point. I agree with you more than with her, really (see my response above to
From:
no subject
I saw your response to Siro Gravity (and that's another good point she made too about the extent of derivation). Yes, knowing where to draw the line is a tricky one.
ETA: Oh, and I just saw your extended conversation too.