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: Neeru Paharia <neeru AT creativecommons.org>
  • To: <cc-eyebeam AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-eyebeam] Responses to Carlo and Liza
  • Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 15:49:23 -0800

I don't think that remixes are necessarily upgrades, rather they're more
like a lateral derivative. Which is why I think remixes can apply to all
kinds of art, think of collage. And think of some basic components of
drawing. How come we all can recognize a painting of a face if everyone
paints it differently? Because it's made of standard source components that
everyone recognizes. Like a circle represents a head, and two dots
represent eyes, it's its own language.

Neeru

On 11/16/03 8:57 AM, "cz AT zanni.org" <cz AT zanni.org> wrote:

>
> &gt;&gt;&gt;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.
> _______________________________________________
> cc-eyebeam mailing list
> cc-eyebeam AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-eyebeam
>
> This discussion runs 2003 November 12-19. Submissions are licensed
> under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
> license <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/1.0/>.
>





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page