Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-eyebeam - Re: [cc-eyebeam] Responses to Carlo and Liza

cc-eyebeam AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Creative Commons-Eyebeam Forum 2003 November 12-19

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: cz AT zanni.org
  • To: cc-eyebeam AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [cc-eyebeam] Responses to Carlo and Liza
  • Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 11:57:53 -0500 (EST)


>>>Our licenses have been designed for most copyrightable content,
including paintings. In the same way that a band would want their song shared
online, I could see the same motives for a visual net artist.



Hi,
I understand but I see artworld as a parallel world where this kind of rules
don't work.
The only "copyright/copyleft" art can have, in my opinion, is authorship,
that is a long process, and not only a signature.
I mean, I don't want to stop people from copying my paintings or copying my
net things because there is no reason why they should do it.
In artworld there isn't an attitude to upgrade things as usually there is in
software or music (with remix). Think about photoshop 1,2, 3, 4, 5..
I could be interested in stealing or sharing their code and upgrading it...
But there is no reason to steal a netart work to upgrade it. I don't think
people can appreciate my work, my figure as an artist if I steal netFlag
scripts...
doing a new faster version of them... or a version with more patterns and so
on.. who cares about it?
I still don't think copyright or copyleft are applicable to art pieces...
and the only license art can have is its presence in a personal research
field... people usually call it poetics.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page