Copyright.
How is copyright working in the digital realm??
What I think I now, what I want to know...
I have always been aware of citing sources and the rules of plagiarism in the literature world, but coming from the visual world and not being in the digital world there seems to be a lot of grey area and uncertainty when it comes to copyright issues. I was told by a previous printmaking teacher on collecting images for source material, that once you've changed it 3 times, and then you print it (which changes it a fourth time) it becomes your own and there are no copyright issues. Since then, I have taken advantage of that rule in both printmaking and ceramics. I print out my own decals that I've taken from images of fabric and wallpaper patterns, manipulate them in Photoshop, and fire on in a collage type composition on the ceramic surface. And the same with my silkscreen prints, I find patterns online, change them in Photoshop, and them layer them on top of each other to create my prints. While doing so, in the back of my mind I still feel like I'm doing something wrong.
There are copyright free books and websites that I have used as well, but I still have a problem with using the image directly even though legally it’s okay.
cool site I use:
http://www.reusableart.com/
What I want to know is... is what I've been doing okay?? Ideally, I know I should just be able to draw all of my imagery, but drawing isn't my best forte. I often wonder about collaging as an art form and what the difference is. Why is it okay for me to cut up National Geographic magazine and create new compositions, but its not okay for me to take images straight from google and cut, paste, and Photoshop them? This is where I get confused.
What I now know...
Before looking up the Napster case, I never really thought about it being a big deal. To me, its just a song and if I can get it for free then why not! Since I'm not a music artist, but a visual artist it was hard for me to truly understand the issues and the case. But after thinking about it with a different approach, like, what if somebody takes my art images from my web sites and includes them in their work and using them however they want (what ever that may be) changes my initial option on file sharing. Recently I have become aware of Creative Commons and I think this is a neat site and a good idea, but I don't think I would put my pictures on it, or get pictures from it. For photographs, I would like to always use work from my own photo library. But I would use Creative Commons for old book illustrations or clip art like I do the other free domain sites.
I have never heard that if you alter an image so many times it becomes your own. I like it, but I would be curious to know whether that is a legal notion or just a good rule of thumb to follow. I also am curious about the use of print versus digital media. You can adapt printed media like National Geographic, but what happens in the digital sphere where manipulation and transformation are a part of everyday experience? I don't know.
ReplyDeleteThis topic is so strange because we are all so used to stealing and reappropriating all the time.
ReplyDeleteNapster etc. is certainly illegal, but it is also so common that we forget it is breaking serious laws.
The now classic Obama "HOPE" image is attributed to Shepard Fairey, but no credit is given to the Photographer who took the original picture of Obama. Fairey made his image public domain but without the permission of the photographer.
At the same time what you do with a piece is going to determine what people make of it. Fairey gets flack because his artwork is so derivative of other work (usually tracings of public domain work) which he then sells for a profit.
If I copy a Shepard Fairey piece and then sell it, would I get the same freedom he receives or would he prosecute?