"We are a nation of business people, and we find art and artists threatening.

July 21, 2001 2:23 PM

"We are a nation of business people, and we find art and artists threatening. Copyright exists, according to the Constitution, 'to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.'

...the point of copyright is to serve the public good, to make our country a better, more interesting place by giving artists and scientists a financial incentive to keep doing what they're doing. When you get down to the Constitution, artists aren't scary freaks, they're all-American. We just have to keep reminding the courts and Congress of that."

-Nancy Updike, in LA Weekly.

posted by thebigpoop (16 comments total)

Property is Theft
posted by Postroad at 2:31 PM on July 21, 2001

Noun is Verb
posted by kindall at 2:35 PM on July 21, 2001

Verb your Noun.
posted by jcterminal at 2:38 PM on July 21, 2001

Think that's illegal in most states.
posted by kindall at 2:40 PM on July 21, 2001

"The myth of the starving artist was invented by bankers." — Picasso
posted by bilco at 2:51 PM on July 21, 2001

In Amsterdam you can verb your noun right out in the street.

Great link, by the way.
Frank Zappa's most oft heard advice for new rockstars :
"Retain your publishing."
posted by dong_resin at 3:27 PM on July 21, 2001

The fight for "moral rights" described in the article seems a bit pointless, as it would become yet another right that artists sell off when they sign a standard contract. That's what happens here in Canadia, anyway.

Hmmm.. how about a law that prevents corporations from holding copyrights? That would stir things up a bit.
posted by D at 6:28 PM on July 21, 2001

The article is much more interesting than the silliness in this thread so far -- go read it.

[Though freelancers have won some recent suits] all-rights contracts make those victories disappointingly narrow.... Often, that's how it goes when artists sue over their contracts: They win the battle but lose the war, as businesses regroup to close whatever loopholes the lawsuits slipped through.... Publishers around the country have been trying to get more without paying more by pretending that it's not more, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told them flat out that the Supreme Court isn't going to back them on that. When The New York Times sulkily threatened that an unfavorable ruling would force them to strip freelance articles from online databases, Ginsburg reminded them that there was another option: Just pay the freelancers.

....This is why all-rights contracts, which are starting to show up in book publishing as well as in magazine and newspaper contracts, are so dangerous. Their whole purpose is to undermine the crucial principle that each right in a contract must be claimed separately and specifically, and that any right not claimed remains with the author.

Worse, artists thought that being signatory to the Berne convention might give them claim to the "moral rights" it recognizes in artistic endeavors, but legislators and jurists disagree that the US recognizes anything but what is codified in national law.

In other words, we are able to use Berne to extend our own corporate-friendly copyright laws around the world, including arresting Norwegian and Russian hackers for contributory infringement just for writing programs -- but the US refuses to recognize any protections for the artists that that same treaty is intended to enforce.
posted by dhartung at 6:31 PM on July 21, 2001

The most interesting part of the piece is the approach that Monty Python took in regard to their dispute, claiming that altering their work was defamatory to their image, and using trademark law win the case.

Could artists protect themselves by claiming themselves to be a brand, and that any alteration or reuse of their work outside of their control would amount to damaging their brand? I've been thinking about this idea recently...but would it work for people who are not celebrities?
posted by thebigpoop at 6:55 PM on July 21, 2001

I like the personal brand idea. There's something nice about appropriating the language of marketing, as marketers are constantly appropriating the language of real people.

Sadly, though, I think these wars are won by those whose lawyers cost more.
posted by D at 12:23 AM on July 22, 2001

As far as I know, a brand exists for the purpose of making a concept the legal property of it's owner so it can be marketed. It seems an artist could argue that his unique character was the unifying and marketable concept that his work were merely advertisements of.
Isn't that really how we think of them, anyway? A 'Van Gogh' refers to many different paintings in a variety of styles, but essentially one recognizable sensibility. A brand.
posted by dong_resin at 12:33 AM on July 22, 2001

> Property is Theft

You are a thief.
posted by pracowity at 1:06 AM on July 22, 2001

Brand you.
posted by dagny at 3:09 AM on July 22, 2001

BURMA SHAVE.
posted by clavdivs at 7:04 AM on July 22, 2001

Smell my brand...

Hey, we have visual pictures, words and sounds (Intel). Why not smells?
posted by fooljay at 12:38 PM on July 22, 2001

As writer of said brand hoo-hah, please read this for why I think individual brand management ties in...
posted by owillis at 1:24 PM on July 22, 2001