Preserved Topic: © is for Sellouts (Page 1 of 2)

Hello, Asylum... I just haven't posted in a while and I wanted to let my voice be heard briefly just to let you all know I still exist. Once again, thanks Doc, et. al. for what you have taught me.

I realize this is an ongoing subject, but it should be.

I consider myself very very new to the understanding of copyright and it's nuances. But for the brief period in my life in which I have studied it, I have continued to have a bad feeling about it.

You see, "© is for sellouts."

The less agressive translation of this (I suppose I was just trying to get someone to read this topic ) is, "© is an integrated (and perhaps integral) part of the corporate world/profitability system that is the driving force/motivation in modern human society."

Now, most of us participate fully in this sytem. I design web sites for car dealerships, banners for banks, etc. But I don't dare call it art... I'm looking for a new term. I think the answer is "creative products."

Although I don't yet call myself an true artist, I'm struggling with the meaning and societal placement of the artist. I don't think artists create with any consideration of profit. I think it's a different system entirely that art dwells within. And frankly, I don't believe that art that is created for the spiritual enhancement of the human condition truly belongs to the artist once it is created - it belongs to humanity. Should we hide our art from the eyes of the poor or distant simply because we wish to profit from it? Of course not... It's why we have museums. But the artist is such an important figure in society, that surely they should be compensated for their work. I'm not exactly sure how to answer that question, but I think it's about honesty and humility when accepting money for art. And what difference does it make if you are given credit for the work? All true art should be signed "Humanity."

But, the main points that I am emphasizing are A) What web designers, etc. are doing is NOT ART (generally), but a commercial, cretive product that should be protected by laws just as other businesses are. B) True art is not part of this commercial system and should not be subject to its laws.

Thanks for listening to my rant. It's just something on my mind and I appreciate the opportunity to speak my ideas, as embryonic and scrambled as they may be.

The term "Commercial Art" works for me.

nj

I've not encountered a better example of the term "oxymoron."

Thank you.

Jumbo Shrimp!

I can see how your thoughts are forming, Meta, but there is a flaw in your reasoning. As far as real art is concerned, as opposed to commercial art, how does the artist live? It's all well and good to sign a piece humanity as long as humanity decides to sign a paycheck at the end of the month.

Other than that, one of the deeper issues is the commercialization of culture and I'm still pretty ambiguous on the subject but I hope to read more on this topic.

I have many true "Artists" as friends. They are artists in the exact same way as you would have them be. They do their stuff to do it. They spend their 8 to 10 hours a day doing their art, and don't expect a dime. They work a real job when things get particularly tight, but even when they go for the jobs they do it will a carefree flare, if they don't get it they can still scrounge around for paints, or even get a can of spray paint inorder to go out and *bomb*.

They never expect their art to pay, yet sometimes it does, they do their shows, get exposure to their work, because after all they are not doing it just for themselves, they are doing it to give their message, and their creations to others. And when someone comes to them and asks "Can I buy this work" you better believe that they will sell it and think $$$.

Yes everyone deserves art. Not just the rich, but if those who do it, starve or can not buy their paints, or pens there will be no art, because it would be impossible to give to the world.

No with the fact that you say © is for sellouts, I can not say how terribly wrong and missguided you are. Those who wish to copy what others do, and use it for their own profit, they are the sellouts. The copy right exists to be able to give credit where credit is due. I don't care what it is, noone has the right to take what someone else has done and pass it off as their own.

If you like something, then emulate them, but add yourself to it. By taking it as it is, you are nothing. Reproduction for the sake of giving the art to those who could not afford it otherwise is a great thing. And that is why there are prints, yet if the artist does not want prints that is his own choice, because it is his work, and he can distribute it as he chooses. If only a certain group is to be allowed to see it by the artist's wishes that is how it should and needs to be.

Also to shatter your ideology again, the copy right is not an itergral part of the corporate world, it is an intergral part of the individuals strife for control over what they do. Even this post as I write it belongs to me, these ideas are mine, they come from my head, and noone has the right to take them from me verbatum and steal them claiming they are their own thoughts. They are able to read what I have written and form their own thoughts on my ideas. Which is what copy rights provide. They provide us a foundation for human advancement, understanding and control.

No corporate bastion is behind the copy right, each individual is behind the copyright because it protects us and forces us to work on our own towards the greater good. To be able to take credit for things we have done, until infinity.

The copyright is not for sellouts, it is for those who work and produce art, and expect to wake up tomorrow and know that the art is their own.

-mage-

Well, I wrote about 1000 words and then lost it because my password was incorrect. I hate it when that happens.

Since I don't have time to do that again, I'll just oversimplify:

1. How to pay artists is another topic entirely. I'm certain that Madonna shouldn't be getting the millions she is, but I'm equally certain that an unknown talented painter should have to flip burgers to get by.

2. The point is - we are all one. If we don't start embracing open source, freedom of expression, and anonymity - especially with art - then we're just going to continue the fantasy of attachement to material things. I realize it's hard to just give up what you've been hoarding for so many eons - selfishness is what got us this far, right? But soone or later, we have to wake up to the Whole.

I grew up. In America.

They told me I'd be famous.

They told me I'd be rich.

I was old and degraded trying to become new and improved.

After a while all the ads just blurred together.

I figured, what a bunch of psychobabble.

I'm not gullible.

I'm not programmed.

Milk does the body good.

Then it dawned on me.

I've known nothing else but this will to acheive.

I've only tried to be the myself I was told to be.

Myself is not myself.

I don't want to be myself.

I want to be free from myself. Free from them. Free from you.

It's occured to me I'm just walking the web like all of you.

We're humming in unison.

Doing what we're told.

You think you're a rebel, I told myself.

But you're really a plastic model of one.

Somewhere there's a voice.

Speaking in a language all my own.

It doesn't know lingo or jargon... just a command to wake up.

And it's getting louder.

Why sleep through this beautiful life?

Why be just a pattern-fit reflective substance,

when you can crystallize and shine?

As far as commercialization of art goes, most people forget that Michealangelo was commisioned to repaint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

blah blah blah blah blah blah. blah blah blah. blah blah blah blah blah blah. blah blah blah. blah blah blah blah blah blah. blah blah blah. blah blah blah blah blah blah. blah blah blah. blah blah blah blah blah blah. blah blah blah. blah blah blah blah blah blah. blah blah blah. blah blah blah blah blah blah. blah blah blah. blah blah blah blah blah blah. blah blah blah. blah blah blah blah blah blah. blah blah blah. blah blah blah blah blah blah. blah blah blah. blah blah blah blah blah blah. blah blah blah. blah blah blah blah blah blah. blah blah blah. blah blah blah blah blah blah. blah blah blah. blah blah blah blah blah blah. blah blah blah. blah blah blah blah blah blah. blah blah blah.


you're so fucking full of shit it's insane.

wake up and get a fucking clue, would you meathead?

DL! 2048 baby! Its your mega-post.

Way to waste it you fucking idiot!

oh, wait......that's right......you're just too profound for my feeble mind....I just *wouldn't understand* you and your great intuition......is that right?

mmm......welcome to the real world asswipe.




{{edit}}I recorded the event for prosperity krets...no worries
http://www.dl-44.f2s.com/2048.gif

[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 06-14-2001).]

*rushes in with fresh mop* OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.. its chaos! ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ~Vp~

ediot: *slaps DL with a false mop alarm charge.. sheesh... *

[This message has been edited by vogonpoet (edited 06-14-2001).]

Wow, you even put periods in there.

Nevermind.

hehehe

You can dress em up and take em to town...but......................

~gets out shop vac and blows in black pill dust~

What are we, the Borg? Communists? No, that's just not how humans work. We want to know it all. If we were looking at Van Goahs' work and didn't know who made it, would we be admireing the work or wondering who the artist was?? Ya, I'd be scratching my head trying to figure it out too. Identity in art is vital, otherwise it would just be a part of the background. You are living in an ideal world my friend, come back to reality man!

You can make money on just about anything, art is no acception. Now where would you be without that copy right you claim is for sellouts? You would be watching some other fool collecting money for your thoughts, passions, and hard work. I agree with only one thing you said, art should be for the masses, but it should not be owned by the masses.




-It never hurts to always be right-

Let's not forget that copyright isn't there only to prevent someone else from selling your work, but prevents others from taking your work and bastardizing it or displaying it in a setting with which you do not want to be associated. It gives you control over where and how your work (and the embodiment of your ideas and/or your soul) is communicated to others.

Simple example: it prevents my photographs (whether or not I plan to make money from them) from being used as backgrounds on porn sites, with which I would not want to be connected.

We can embrace open source and freedom of art while still protecting our right over where and how our individual works are used.

Additionally, copyright allows us to prevent others from taking control of the progression of a work. For example, a few months ago, a girl took one of my written works and posted it on her own Web site. It was a work that was progressive -- I regularly updated it to reflect new information. But, I was unable to do that to the copy she had posted somewhere else. Those who were unaware that she had stolen the work would read her copy, without the up-to-date information, which defeated the purpose of the work.

And although she hadn't, she could have taken the work and changed just enough to turn it in a different direction -- somewhere I wouldn't have wanted it to go. Yet, it would have been in my writing style, with my design and with my name on it. Copyright legally prevents her from doing that.

And if you want to look at the issue of monetary compensation a slightly different way, it's not always about profit. For example, a person could create his art for the sake of art, but the only way he may be able to share it with others is through the Web. And since he isn't selling his work, he is forced to run banners to pay for the hosting. If people are allowed to take his work and post it other places, it would divert traffic away from his site and he would lose the money necessary to pay for his hosting. Consequently, he would lose his means for sharing his work and would no longer be able to contribute to the artistic world.

Sometimes people fail to realize that it is copyright that allows artists to afford to create their works. Do you think Hemingway would have had the time to write all of his books if he had been forced to dig ditches 12 hours a day because others simply copied his work and distributed it as they saw fit? Not only that, he wouldn't have had the time or the money to travel and experience life the way he did, which was the inspiration for his writing.

And by the way, © is for "©ookie," which is good enough for me.

cookie monster fucking rules.

end of story.


(oooh, I hope that didn't sound too unsophisticated for our oh so educated friend.....)

Sorry, DL, Rizzo the Rat could kick Cookie monster's ass Or even Fozzie...wakka wakka wakka

oh silence, you poor ignorant bastard.

you must be young.......to speak such foolishness.

cookie monster will eat your children. heretic.

Hey, you take that back. I'm not poor

I'm sticking with fozzie

Peppe, that alien with a Spanish accent. He was great in Muppets from Space or what ever that movie was called. "Oh... she'll be back."

As for the original topic. Do what you love and make money doing it. That's not a sellout, that's a happy person.

i'd say.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!

After reading the first couple of posts I was going to add something... then... oh fuck it...

I need to sleep!

I agree with copyrights. In a perfect world we wouldn't need them, but today, you are going to be one broke ass SOB if you don't copyright your work. Hell, I heard a case where a guy stole the artists work, published it, and then sued the original artist for copyright infringment. THAT is a damn good reason to copyright your work

I remember this story where and erotic toy company used a mold of this some guy's penis to make toys without his permission. Why he did the mold, I don't know. And I can't imagine how he figured it out. "Come one baby... yeah, that's now. Now stick this... Hey! That' my [penis]!"

He walked away with a *hefty* sum of money.

Copyright that.

no, see that's a different story. my art is for me. my cock is public domain.



so, meta, how do you respond to Wes' argument that © is *not* for sellouts, but is in fact for cookie?

Meta,

your comments re: i grew up in america, who you are, how to be free, etc. i hear loud and clear. i know where you are coming from.

however, people here are not going to understand what you are really talking about.

every one has their own path.

i found zen meditation and buddhism to be a great help.

each to his own.

you and i analyze things Very Much. most people do not and are offended by analysis when others do so.

it helps to be selective of your audience if ya wanna raise those topics.

enjoy.

cb

heh...you call it "analyzing" I call it bullshit.

(btw I don't recall anyone being offended so far in this thread...?)

Acidbox -- I'm really not sure how that could have happened, since anything you create is automatically copyrighted. The original creator must have had serious lack of proof that it was his work. Or the thief had a damn good lawyer.

I hereby copyright this coversation, since I created it. Any further replies my be subject to litigation and extensive profit on my behalf.

Hah, nice try, Meta, but this reply goes under the "fair use" clause. This is laid out by the United States code Title 17,section 107 with reference to the words "criticism" and "comment".

kiss my ass

Have a nice day

hehehe

all the good parts were created by everyone else anyway

well DL-44 it takes a lot to get you emotional over anything, so, i am always happy when you do so.

not particularly emotional, I just get sick of hearing these things that are meant to be some great profound notion but are really just loads of bullshit.

I mean...no offense to anyone.....but c'mon..........

If people would just stop trying to prove to themselves that they're more intelligent than they actually are, the world would be a nicer place

So... what would happen if someone was more intelligent than they actually were?

After I figure that out, I'm off to jot down the Grand Unified Theory on the back of a napkin.

bug - I think that would be the same result as traveling at the speed of light.

...er something...

After following this post for a long time, I'm afraid I have to agree with DL-44. This issue of 'copyright' vs freedom of expression is an old, old theme. Poeple have been trying to seperate artistic freedom from making a living since...it all began. And it hasn't changed. There was a time when prominate barons, princes and kings had to have a 'court' artist, who pretty much lived for free, just doing art. Then the times changed. And so it goes on. I do think, however, that it is very important that the artist has control over what he/she creates. And that's my two cents.

That's the attitude of the day for so many things.

Hey, "that's just how it goes, man."

Right.

You keep on going with the way things are and die happy. I'll continue to struggle with the world as it is because it's completely fucked up and backwards.

Hey, you don't have to be a genius to know that! But... what does it take to actually care about it? What quality is it that forces you to not just perceive the error of this society, but give a shit?

Just keep on doing your thing out there - like I am.
For now.
Remember, profit is good.
Money is good.
Things I have are mine mine mine.
Things I do are mine mine mine.
You and me - we're not the same.
We're separate.
See this line?
Better not cross it.
Cause I own this space right here.
I own all the space.
My space.
Get out.