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:
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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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?
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.
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.
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.
no subject