Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Fair use?
Keir Smith's work shows on appropriation of alot of copied images that in the midst of the copyright laws it would be illegal. In my opinion a work like this should not fall under the illegal catagory as it is more on artwork inforcing ideas and making statements around the idea of fair use and copyright exceptions. In a country of democracy such an image should be accpetable because we are suppose to be able to inforce our opinion. There is also the case of what is art and what is drawing the line, this would not be considered as art because it is illegally using images but is it not merely using the old concept of photomontage, borrowing already made images and using them to create a whole new image of your own to voice your own idea. It is not like Smith has taking the images and labelled them as his own, or taken a single image and claimed it as his but he has instead taken highly recognisable images to socitey and used them in a way that voices a whole different meaning and a whole new aspect to the work. Crime or not? ..For me I call it art!
The Chair
Case Study 2:
This case is on the supposed use of Lebbeus Woods' drawing of a chair being appropriated into the "12 Monkeys" movie by Universal Studios. Viewing both the chair drawing and the scene in the movie where it is appropriated it is quite obvious that the chair in the movie is that of the one Lebbeus Woods drew. It not only has very similar features to that of Woods' like the vertical rail and the suspended sphere but the director, Terry Gilliam, admits himself of having reviewed a copy of the picture and discussing it with fellow crew members. This here is a dead give away that he has breached the copyright laws because he appropriated the image without the consent of the artist therefore the court finding Universal Studios guilty was correct and Woods demanding money for the usage of the chair completely reasonable as an artist should get paid for the usage of his/her work.
This case is on the supposed use of Lebbeus Woods' drawing of a chair being appropriated into the "12 Monkeys" movie by Universal Studios. Viewing both the chair drawing and the scene in the movie where it is appropriated it is quite obvious that the chair in the movie is that of the one Lebbeus Woods drew. It not only has very similar features to that of Woods' like the vertical rail and the suspended sphere but the director, Terry Gilliam, admits himself of having reviewed a copy of the picture and discussing it with fellow crew members. This here is a dead give away that he has breached the copyright laws because he appropriated the image without the consent of the artist therefore the court finding Universal Studios guilty was correct and Woods demanding money for the usage of the chair completely reasonable as an artist should get paid for the usage of his/her work.
Harrison Vs Mack
Case Study 1:
So the case is that of ex-Beatle George Harrison being found guilty for copying the hit single of "My Sweet Lord" that was originally written by Ronald Mack and called "He's So Fine", performed by The Chiffons. After listening to both songs the question has been raised of has Harrison borrowed his musical ideas from Mack's song? In my opinion the songs are completely different! I have no idea how this court case could have found him guilty as his song is solidly based around the title of "My Sweet Lord" and follows a whole different rhythm and tune to that of Ronald Mack's. The feel of Harrisons song is completely different in the way you feel more compassion and it is put together in a more slow, romantic, feel good sense. Ronald Mack's is a lively bouncey song that you can feel yourself dancing along to or bobing down the street, completely unlike Harrisons! Not only are the structure of the songs recognisably different but the words barely relate at all other than the fact they are both focused on praising a sole character or guy. Fail of the copyright law here, Harrison is not guilty!
So the case is that of ex-Beatle George Harrison being found guilty for copying the hit single of "My Sweet Lord" that was originally written by Ronald Mack and called "He's So Fine", performed by The Chiffons. After listening to both songs the question has been raised of has Harrison borrowed his musical ideas from Mack's song? In my opinion the songs are completely different! I have no idea how this court case could have found him guilty as his song is solidly based around the title of "My Sweet Lord" and follows a whole different rhythm and tune to that of Ronald Mack's. The feel of Harrisons song is completely different in the way you feel more compassion and it is put together in a more slow, romantic, feel good sense. Ronald Mack's is a lively bouncey song that you can feel yourself dancing along to or bobing down the street, completely unlike Harrisons! Not only are the structure of the songs recognisably different but the words barely relate at all other than the fact they are both focused on praising a sole character or guy. Fail of the copyright law here, Harrison is not guilty!
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Hello out there...
So its my first ever blog...excluding bebo n facebook haha...just messing round setting up shit for my digi lit class and adding my blog and flickr on to my blogline news reader. so far thats all ive added as i don't no many URLs i search very often.....its progress!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
