I know I’m probably too quick to throw stuff up here that’s of no interest to anyone, but this is really great! Duke Law held a contest for 2-minute documentaries focused on ‘tensions between art and intellectual property law, and the intellectual property issues artists face,â€

LAD wrote: And there may be an art to it or some art in it, but I think the craft/art binary holds up pretty well

A good analogy would be comparing a chef to an artist. A chef is not an artist because, ultimately, whatever he/she makes has to taste good. An artist can make something that is looks or sounds fucking awful and it can still be good.

Richard Prince 'appropriated' a very interesting publicity photo of an 8 or 9 year old Brooke Shields, which he called 'Spiritual America' and appears in his book 'Women'. His photograph is actually a photograph of a photograph. I think Brooke Shields' mum and agent attempted to sue Prince over the ownership and use of the image. I presume they lost because the image still appears in his books. You will be able to see the image on the internet but I certainly wouldn't post it here.

toomanyhelicopters wrote:go ahead, take the photo of the photo, if that's the best you've got. and then send half of your profits to the guy/gal who took the photo you took a photo of, and send the other half to whoever first photographed a photograph. whatever you're doing, if you look at it from the right angle, it's already been done and you're kidding yourself thinking you've done something original. inescapably synthetic, i think.

Old topic here, but there's this article in today's NY Times about the photographer whose photographs Richard Prince has re-photographed. What pisses me off here is that everything that is visually arresting about the images the Guggenheim is exhibiting and putting on its posters and that Christies is selling for hundreds of thousands of dollars is the work of this other commercial photographer.

Best quote: “If I italicized ‘Moby-Dick,’ then would it be my book? I don’t know. But I don’t think so.”

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but if you are interested in listening to a band that based it's entire career on balancing the line between theft and appropriation, I suggest NEGATIVLAND. If you want a lp specifically, listen to either THE LETTER U AND THE NUMERAL 2 or the slightly annoying DISPEPSI. Both lps are about being sued out of existence at the hands of record companies, soft drink companies, and Casey Casum.

After spinning these two a few times you should have a pretty firm understanding of where this issue is in terms of music.

Dude, the photographer that Prince re-photographed should re-rephotograph Prince's re-photos and sell them for serious cash.

People would buy it.

It would be brilliant.

Cranius wrote:I presume they lost because the image still appears in his books. You will be able to see the image on the internet but I certainly wouldn't post it here.

Or he paid them money to keep it...

Didn't Kathy Acker do this with a lot of her books? At least, appropriating titles from other books and rewriting them?

I've only read a little of her material, but I don't think I've read any of those particular books.