seen from Maldives
seen from China
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Australia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Russia
seen from China
seen from China
seen from United Kingdom
seen from India
seen from Singapore
seen from United States
seen from Uzbekistan
seen from France
A reminder that your Instagram photos aren’t really yours: Someone else can sell them for $90,000 - The Washington Post
The Internet is the place where nothing goes to die. Those embarrassing photos of your high school dance you marked "private" on Facebook? The drunk Instagram posts? The NSFW snapchats? If you use social media, you’ve probably heard a warning akin to "don’t...
READ MORE AT http://popi.st/1HKDErt
Pure Bliss | Caribou - 'Our Love'
Pure Bliss | Caribou – ‘Our Love’
Sublime electronic bliss.
Those are the words I’d use to describe Canadian producer Caribou aka Dan Snaith’s infectious new single, “Our Love.”
When you first push play, atmospheric vocals and slow-burn beats begin to entice you. This sultry combination creates a “late-night ride” vibe, but don’t be mistaken by the subtle BPM.
This track reaches it’s full potential and powers up with some wicked…
View On WordPress
A recent letter I wrote to David Noël, the VP of Community at SoundCloud about the future of copyright law
Hi David,
My name is Jean-Michel Hoffman, I manage a young progressive house producer from Vancouver named Moiez and work as a creative strategist at the global digital marketing agency Digitas. I want to get in contact with you today to discuss the future of copyright law and how SoundCloud can be an international leader in helping push copyright law around the world to become in greater accordance with the way citizens of digital era consume and create media.
Last week, Moiez released a bootleg remix of a track called Summer by Calvin Harris. His impetus for doing so was a firm belief that the original track could not be listened to in many settings and he felt that by appropriating the vocals he could make a new original work that would add to the dialect around the track and create greater enjoyment for listeners. Moiez released two versions of the track for free on his SoundCloud account only to have copyright claims filed against him within two days and the tracks removed. One week later, to our immense shock and disbelief, his account was terminated. We and Moiez' fans are immensely disheartened that such an extreme barrier could be thrown before a budding young artist without so much as a discussion.
While music and fine art are different forms of artistic expression, in the digital era they both encompass a rather similar process of creation. Today, a musician, like a painter, is able to create and work in their home studio without the backing of a commercial apparatus like a record label. The spontaneity of appropriation of bits of work from other musicians is generally done within the context of creating a new original work in order to bring a new take on a song into the world to be listened to and criticized by the public.
I bring up a comparison to fine art only to draw upon the recent copyright case Cariou v. Prince, in which Richard Prince was sued for appropriating a group of photographs which he later transformed into paintings. Prince argued that his works were "transformative" and constituted fair use of Cariou's original copyrighted photographs. The US Second Circuit Court ruled in favor of Prince determining that the, "extent of permissible copying varies with the purpose and character of the use." In turn, the secondary use "must be [permitted] to 'conjure up' at least enough of the original" to fulfill its "transformative" purpose. In so doing the court held that a secondary work may constitute a fair use even if it serves some purpose other than those cited as examples in the Copyright Act's fair use clause (e.g., criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research).
I believe a similar argument can be made in comparison to Moiez' remixes of Summer. In appropriating the vocals from Calvin Harris's track and putting them in an entirely new musical context through his remixes, Moiez thoroughly transformed the original work so as to be considered permissible according to the new standard for Fair Use set in the Second Circuit's ruling on Cariou v. Prince. Furthermore, I believe that this argument likely extends to thousands of other remixes that have been taken down from SoundCloud. Moiez should not be penalized for making his remixes of summer and he certainly should not have had his account terminated for producing such work.
The Second Circuit's recent ruling sets a new standard upon which services like SoundCloud must set their copyright policy. SoundCloud is in a unique position to adopt a more progressive copyright policy that can have an impact on the music industry at large. I would love to have a greater discussion with you about how SoundCloud can adopt copyright standards that make sense in our digital era and encourage musicians to make work without being penalized by copyright holders.
I look forward to hearing from you and being given the opportunity to discuss this matter in greater depth.
Sincerely,
Jean-Michel Hoffman
Source: The 'Transformation' Of Fair Use After Prince v. Cariou
Does Today’s ‘Fair Use’ Destroy Artist Rights?
By Diana Yu
On the heels of the recent Cariou v. Prince decision in 2013, another copyright infringement case has arisen: Greenfield v. Pankey.
Plaintiff Lois Greenfield is a dance photographer and defendant Jill Pankey is a painter, who has allegedly based her paintings off of 33 of Greenfield’s photos. The similarities are, in fact, uncanny… (Left: Pankey, Right: Greenfield)
Source: Center for Art Law
Pankey is not a New Yorker, as she is originally from Texas. However, as a result of her activities in promotion and exhibition of her works in Manhattan, she is indeed subject to the jurisdiction of New York Federal Courts (I know, I know... Civ Pro much?)
In Cariou, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reasoned that as long as Mr. Prince’s work transformed the images into original art, he was not violating anyone’s copyright (Source: The New York Times). With this precedent defining the fair use standard so broadly, requiring only a reasonable viewer find the new work “transformative”, it appears that photographers will face a struggle to protect their works against potential future infringements.
Although a coalition of more than half a dozen groups, including the National Press Photographers Association, Professional Photographers of America and the Picture Archive Council of America, joined together to submit a friend of the court brief to support the photographer Patrick Cariou (after part of his case against Mr. Prince was sent back to a judge for reconsideration), the rights of artists against copyright infringement lies in limbo. Click here for the brief.
Legislation could provide a solution, but I wouldn’t hold your breath. In the NY Times article, according to Mickey H. Osterreicher, general counsel for the National Press Photographers, the last time copyright law was passed was in 1976…
Should artists who want to use someone else’s creation in their works be required to pay a fee? Should they not be allowed to use it at all? Or should they be able to use them freely? What are your thoughts?
Reasonable Minds Disagree about Fair Use after Cariou v. Prince
By Kristen Niven
On November 13th, Cardozo Art Law Society, with the Intellectual Property Law Society’s Copyright Committee, hosted a lively panel discussion of the recent Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Cariou v. Prince. This timely discussion took place the day after the Supreme Court denied cert, leaving the Second Circuit’s decision the standing law on appropriation and fair use in art.
Richard Prince is a well-known artist whose works are displayed in museums around the world and have sold at auction for millions. Considered by many to be the father of Appropriation Art, he has been mining mass culture from advertising and pop culture since the 1970s.
Prince’s appropriation artworks have often been understood to be commentaries on popular culture, re-purposing the imagery from the advertising and revealing the mythology of mass media. For his Canal Zone series, exhibited in 2008 at the Gagosian Gallery, Prince appropriated photographs by Patrick Cariou from his book, Yes, Rasta, a series of portraits and landscapes taken over six years he spent in Jamaica living among Rastafarians.[1] Cariou sued Prince and the Gagosian alleging infringement of his copyrights in the Yes Rasta photos.
[Left: a photo from Yes, Rasta, by Patrick Cariou. Right: Graduation by Richard Prince, from Canal Zone]
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Cariou. Rejecting the asserted defense of fair use, it held that the use was not transformative, since, among other considerations, the purpose and character of Prince’s work was not to “comment on, relate to the historical context of, or critically refer back” to Cariou’s works themselves.[2]
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals overturned summary judgment and found 25 of the works in Canal Zone to be covered by fair use. The Second Circuit rejected the district court’s test for transformativeness, the "heart of the fair use inquiry".[3] It held that in order to be transformative, a work must alter the original with a "new expression, meaning or message”[4], not necessarily about the original work. Furthermore, this is determined by an objective standard of how the works appear to the reasonable observer rather than by the artist’s stated intent.[5] It was this new test for transformativeness in the Second Circuit that sparked a thoughtful debate.
Was this decision good for artists? Was it good for our intellectual property system as a whole? As it turns out, reasonable minds can disagree about the result of this case. The nexus of the debate came down to equally persuasive understandings of the very purpose and heart of American copyright law.
Alan Behr, a renowned IP attorney at Philips Nizer LLP, photographer and art critic, noted the enormous liberties this vague test allowed artists to take in appropriating the intellectual property of photographers without license. Mr. Behr emphasized the property rights inherent to the constitutionally-endorsed copyright law, which were admittedly diminished or made vague for those working from the photography perspective. After Cariou, he argued, virtually any use of a copyrighted work that makes an original expression is carved out of the already limited scope of rights to the work over which a photographer has exclusive control.
John Koegel of the Koegel Group LLP, former General Counsel at MoMa, who has represented Jeff Koons in litigation, celebrated this broadened definition of fair use for artists. His view strongly emphasized the purpose of the copyright law to promote a range of creative expression, making the path for artists to create clear of excessive legal obstruction and red tape. This decision, according to Mr. Koegel, puts forth a standard more appropriate to and reflective of the contemporary art world.
But what does the new transformativeness standard mean for appropriation artists working today? Michael Rips, special counsel at Steptoe and Johnson LLP, who has advised arts institutions including the Whitney Museum and Dia Foundation and represented artists including James Rosenquist and the Dan Flavin estate, generally favored the Second Circuit’s decision not to limit fair use to commentary on the original work. However, he takes issue with the “reasonable observer” standard of objectivity, noting that, in addition to having no clear precedent, the decision leaves a vague and fickle standard that may not accurately reflect the nature and purpose of the appropriating work.
On advising artists in light of this decision, the panel agreed that the law as it stands is certainly more favorable to appropriation artists. However, it leaves attorneys with a diffuse and confusing set of standards to determine whether an artist may be trespassing on the exclusive rights of a copyright holder, or whether the use is sufficiently transformative, from a legal rather than an art-critical perspective, to constitute fair use.
[1] Cariou v. Prince, 714 F.3d 694, 699.
[2] Cariou v. Prince, 784 F.Supp.2d 337, 348-349.
[3] 714 F.3d at 705 (citing Blanch v. Koons, 467 F.3d 244, 251).
[4] Id. at 706.
[5] Id. at 707.
New Post has been published on Online Read Books
New Post has been published on http://www.onlinereadbooks.com/sixtyfive-roses-a-sisters-memoir-by-heather-summerhayes-cariou-book-review-2.html
Sixtyfive Roses - A Sister's Memoir by Heather Summerhayes Cariou - Book Review
Siblings – if you have one or more, you probably know how that goes… Can’t live with them sometimes, and can’t live without them for sure. So often they are our mirrors – in which we see ourselves the way others see us, and at times the way we wish we would truly be. I just cannot imagine losing any of mine, and I realize all too well that they have helped shape me into the human being that I became, in many ways even more than my parents have.
Reading “Sixtyfive Roses” was incredibly sobering. I cannot imagine the courage Heather Summerhayes Cariou had to have to actually write this unbelievable story and have it published. But then, she had a lifelong training in “above-and-beyond” courageous behavior. Imagine knowing since early childhood that your baby sister is ill – and that she will never get better. Imagine promising her not to leave, and not to let her die alone. Imagine being her lifelong protector. Imagine living with this impenetrable black cloud surrounding you and your family. And yet, you have to grow up. And you realize all too well that one day your sister will be gone. Imagine the rage, the despair, the jealousy for not being the center of attention, the desperate desire to make your sister’s life easier… all those conflicting, oftentimes violent emotions. And one day the unthinkable happens… and your sister takes the last, labored breath. She is gone. And you are still here.
The story of how Pam, Heather’s younger sister, was diagnosed with Cystic Fibrosis at the age of four, and how her family fought for her and other children with this debilitating disease is not a happy one, but definitely a positive and hopeful one. The strength and courage of everybody involved, from Pam herself to her family, her doctors and others with the same disease shows the world at least two perennial truths: that good does not necessarily win and that courage and fighting spirit can make an unbelievable difference. Back in those days children with CF tended to die very young, and Pammy’s prognosis was no better, yet she kept fighting for over two decades and lived to the age of twenty-six. And she did not merely exist in this world, she lived her life as fully as possible and she made a difference in many other lives.
Heather Summerhayes Cariou’s “Sixtyfive Roses” is a memoir, a tribute and a love poem, written in a clear, sometimes brutally honest and always sincere fashion. Her words are beautifully crafted, and her voice is distinct and unique. I have no doubt that Pammy is smiling at her big sister right now, and feeling mighty proud of her.
“Sixtyfive Roses” should be required reading for anybody dealing with a seriously ill person in their life, as well as anybody with any kind of a big or small problem. It certainly puts a lot of things in perspective, and it made me so very glad that I can go, pick up a phone and talk to my siblings right now, which is exactly what I am going to do tonight.
McArthur & Company (2008) ISBN 9781552786789
Response to "Apropos Appropriation"
article by Randy Kennedy here
Though I could see the logic on both sides of the argument for the majority of the article, the moment where Cariou's lawyer says, “It can’t just be random, that he ‘liked it,’ because there’s no practical boundary to that,” really bugged me. At the heart of that statement lies the problem: quantifiable standards attempting to control something as intangible as the spirit behind a person's art. But on some level I agree with the judge's ruling that you can't appropriate another person's art without commenting on it. What is the purpose of having someone else's work there for reference if you don't mean to say something specific about it? Otherwise, you should just create your own imagery, using theirs as inspiration. For example, you would never quote someone else's writing in an essay just because it has the same themes as what you're writing about, and then never give reason for why the quote was there (unless you're a bad writer). The same seems to go for visual art. In regards to the internet, I have to painfully agree that many of the places where we post our art make it easy and even encourage others to share and alter it. It is almost as though once someone posts something online, it becomes the internet's - the property of an ever-giving mother. At the same time, it's the best bet for artists who want to share their work for the betterment of mankind. Either way, internet or not, there is sacrifice.
I wonder what would happen if someone took Prince's art and changed it to the extent that he changed Cariou's. Would he take them to court?
