AESTHETICS FOR BIRDS: A few weeks back, as my aesthetics undergrads were taking their final exam, I was sitting in the back of the room, reading Susan M. Bielstein’s 2006 book, Permissions, A Survival Guide: Blunt Talk about Art as Intellectual Property. It’s a book about the history, legality, and pragmatics of art permissions, and it’s a page-turner. Seriously: it’s easily one of the best books about copyright that I’ve read in years (and, by God, that’s saying a lot).
6 comments:
I always take an interest in copyright law and discussion. As an artist (photographer, painter) I am always concerned about protecting my work. I have always understood that a process is not subject to copyright (though it can be trademarked), a concept also falls under that umbrella. The process in which I paint or photograph does not get included in the copyright protection of the finished product. It would be hard for me to claim that putting one of my photographs into a store bought frame, wherein the frame is part of the final, finished image could fall under copyright. What happens when the frame gets damaged and needs to be replaced? Would I then have to file a new copyright? (Fair disclosure, filing of copyright is not required for a work to be considered protected under U.S. Law.) I’d be curious to read the book mentioned in the article as well since it follows along with my interest in copyright protection and law. I will have to add this book written by an “enviously good writer” to my reading list.
Navigating the world of intellectual property and the relevant laws can be quite confusing. For starters, an intellectual property (In the United States) can be classified as a patent, a copyright, a trademark, or as design rights. A patent protects a process or idea, a copyright protects any work that can be recorded in some way, a trademark covers a design symbol or related aesthetic item that is easily designated as a brand, and design rights cover the overall appearance for a product. For example, as Josh was talking about, he cannot copyright the process behind the creation of his painting, as that would a patent. The painting itself, however, is a copyright because it is a work that has been recorded through the use of paint on a canvas or other media. We spent several days talking about intellectual property, its related laws, and how these processes relate to theatre in Production Personnel Management. Honestly, the complexity of this subject could be an entire class of its own, or even a major (ie. Copyright and IP lawyers).
As someone who has followed and been invested in copyright issues when it comes to art, this seemed like an interesting article to me. This one in particular is a very fascinating case. The distinction that the author makes their way to in terms of defining copyright is one that really helps a reader understand some complexities that this particular issue brings up. The idea that authored work is the kind of work that copyright protects instead of art that can be created from or derivative of other works. I thought the inclusion of the frame within the copyright was strange and unconventional. The book that the author of this article mentions at the beginning of the article does seem like one that would be an interesting read. Law surrounding copyright has been seemed very interesting, especially in cases where people are either getting it blatantly wrong or it appears nebulous.
Copyright makes my brain hurt sometimes. During my last tattoo session I mentioned to my artist the celebrities who are being turned into video game characters finding their tattoo artists going “you can’t sell the image of your tattoo without my permission” and the weirdness of selling the rights to your likeness when your likeness includes someone else’s art on it. She immediately stopped and went “let it be known that I consider your final payment the sale of my IP and copyright, because if you skid down a road, gain or lose a ton of weight, pour bleach on yourself while cleaning up the house or otherwise damage this art—I don’t want anyone thinking I did a trash job.” This article is fascinating to me because so much of art truly has become about the journey of the art, not the final product itself, and it raises a brilliant question of how to protect that journey, if you can at all.
It was so encouraging but also saddening to read this article. Growing up in a society that the whole theater industry is underappreciated and outclassed by filming medias, it was not an smooth path to work towards the craft I would like to master. As much as the author described, the very beating heart of commercial theater is always seemed far away, but meanwhile it is such a vital factor the distance is for doing and learning performing arts in every aspect. Despite all the difficulties, I am so glad that the author went strong and held on her dream. Only after one really tried hard enough to work it out then the true problems the person seen would be critical. The issues mentioned in the article are all important and urgent, including the racial imbalance, physical limitations and pricing. All three are the questions that need our collective effort to solve. I am hoping that our society would work them out in near future.
*correction:
I have worked on a festival called Fringe that has a similar set up for all the productions in it, and the experience proved how dynamic and inspiring a "hit and run" of theater performance can be. Just like "storefront", the festival required all the productions- which numbered usually around 20-30 to be executed in public or commercial spaces such as coffee shops, libraries and art parks. By bonding the theater art to more approachable elements and activities, the festival really achieved the goal of developing theatrical exposure to the common mass that had little knowing of it. The great potential I saw in this kind of events is even beyond the growth of audience size, furthermore it created many chances for people that hold interest towards expressing their ideas through theater. The flexible schedule made it possible for doing art in casual level of investment, and the smaller budget due to that the spaces are volunteered by owners allowed artists to sustain companies that aiming for smaller productions. All it all, I see these types of productions as new answers to revived theater arts in present trends.
Post a Comment