4 ms·

Either I'm misunderstanding copyright or he is... what "artistic copyright" applies here?

by rhcom2 10y ago

542458 10y ago
I can't speak for US law, but in Canada at least the holder of the artistic copyright is allowed to control/restrict modifications to their art. For example, the Eaton's center placed temporary Christmas bows on a sculpture they were displaying. The artist objected, and won in court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_v_Eaton_Centre_Ltd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_v_Eaton_Centre_Ltd That said, I can't speak to how US law will see it, or how the law works in regards to adjacent art installations.
- gerbilly 10y ago
  I believe these are called 'moral rights." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  Installation of another work near his art doesn't affect the integrity of his work, even if it does create a new composite work in which his, with complete integrity, is subsumed. Moreover, it's important to note that the federal copyright exceptions regarding satire and other forms of commentary, even though some of them are also reflected in statutory fair use, are of constitutional dimension, and would therefore similarly limit application of any state-law restriction on a new work as they do federal copyright law.
pdabbadabba 10y ago
There is a body of quasi-copyright principles that apply to artistic works called 'moral rights.' This framework recognizes a "right of integrity" which prevents unauthorized modifications of the work. This approach seem pretty strange to those used to the American system of copyright law and U.S. law does not fully recognize them. But, being Italian, this framework is probably informing the artist's views here. Here is a brief write-up: https://cyber.harvard.edu/property/library/moralprimer.html https://cyber.harvard.edu/property/library/moralprimer.html
- elastic_church 10y ago
  so basically, he doesn't have a case, thanks for reaffirming my world view.
  - patorjk 10y ago
    Maybe I'm just really tired, but that article made it seem like he does have a case... > Authors may seek moral rights protection from state moral rights laws and art preservation statutes in California and New York, whose provisions resemble those of VARA. > VARA grants two rights to authors of visual works: the right of attribution, and the right of integrity.
    - elastic_church 10y ago
      ah, hm, I was not familiar with that. I skimmed the article but missed that part I'll keep VARA in mind, looks like he could use both the federal VARA law and the state's
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  Being both European and an artist I like the moral rights doctrine a lot, but I don't think it would hold any water here as Di Modica is attempting to extend his claim of authorship to the space around the Charging Bull, and essentially demanding that his art should enjoy the privilege of being viewed in isolation, ironically redolent of capitalism itself. The boundary of a work is very important artistically, and there are all sorts of explicit and implicit conceptual assertions made by how it shapes the rest of the work. Di Modica chose not create an explicit border around the statue, not least because to do so might have changed its meaning - a ring, for example, would suggest that the bull should be confined, where his intention was to celebrate its vitality and strength. Where, then, is the boundary of a sculpture? At what point does something impinge upon it? I suggest that the fair boundary of a free-standing sculpture is that distance from it which allows a human viewer to apprehend the work as a whole. The point of an art work is to create a unique sense impression in a person who encounters it, and size is a quality independent of individual sensory channels, but measured in relation to ourselves. In this case I feel that the distance around Charging Bull from which people can view the whole thing in unimpaired in any significant way. People who feel the space around the sculpture has become a part of the work are equating the semantic content that the work presents with the work itself. The sense of power and motion in Di Modica's sculpture touches our instincts about how much space to give it. But those distances are personal, and exist in our psychic space rather than in real space. In real space, the only kind of distance over which one can speak of damaging an art work is by impairing the ability to view it in full. How people feel about Charging Bull is a personal matter, but it's misleading to conflate the experience of contemplating it from a given spatial point with the content of the work itself. We have become used to thinking of the sculpture as dominating the space around it, but the space is no more part of the work than the Louvre is part of the Mona Lisa.

Either I'm misunderstanding copyright or he is... what "artistic copyright" applies here?

by rhcom2 10y ago

Either I'm misunderstanding copyright or he is... what "artistic copyright" applies here?

I can't speak for US law, but in Canada at least the holder of the artistic copyright is allowed to control/restrict modifications to their art. For example, the Eaton's center placed temporary Christmas bows on a sculpture they were displaying. The artist objected, and won in court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_v_Eaton_Centre_Ltd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_v_Eaton_Centre_Ltd That said, I can't speak to how US law will see it, or how the law works in regards to adjacent art installations.

gerbilly 10y ago
I believe these are called 'moral rights." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights
dragonwriter 10y ago
Installation of another work near his art doesn't affect the integrity of his work, even if it does create a new composite work in which his, with complete integrity, is subsumed. Moreover, it's important to note that the federal copyright exceptions regarding satire and other forms of commentary, even though some of them are also reflected in statutory fair use, are of constitutional dimension, and would therefore similarly limit application of any state-law restriction on a new work as they do federal copyright law.

pdabbadabba 10y ago

There is a body of quasi-copyright principles that apply to artistic works called 'moral rights.' This framework recognizes a "right of integrity" which prevents unauthorized modifications of the work. This approach seem pretty strange to those used to the American system of copyright law and U.S. law does not fully recognize them. But, being Italian, this framework is probably informing the artist's views here. Here is a brief write-up: https://cyber.harvard.edu/property/library/moralprimer.html https://cyber.harvard.edu/property/library/moralprimer.html

elastic_church 10y ago
so basically, he doesn't have a case, thanks for reaffirming my world view.
- patorjk 10y ago
  Maybe I'm just really tired, but that article made it seem like he does have a case... > Authors may seek moral rights protection from state moral rights laws and art preservation statutes in California and New York, whose provisions resemble those of VARA. > VARA grants two rights to authors of visual works: the right of attribution, and the right of integrity.
  - elastic_church 10y ago
    ah, hm, I was not familiar with that. I skimmed the article but missed that part I'll keep VARA in mind, looks like he could use both the federal VARA law and the state's
anigbrowl 10y ago
Being both European and an artist I like the moral rights doctrine a lot, but I don't think it would hold any water here as Di Modica is attempting to extend his claim of authorship to the space around the Charging Bull, and essentially demanding that his art should enjoy the privilege of being viewed in isolation, ironically redolent of capitalism itself. The boundary of a work is very important artistically, and there are all sorts of explicit and implicit conceptual assertions made by how it shapes the rest of the work. Di Modica chose not create an explicit border around the statue, not least because to do so might have changed its meaning - a ring, for example, would suggest that the bull should be confined, where his intention was to celebrate its vitality and strength. Where, then, is the boundary of a sculpture? At what point does something impinge upon it? I suggest that the fair boundary of a free-standing sculpture is that distance from it which allows a human viewer to apprehend the work as a whole. The point of an art work is to create a unique sense impression in a person who encounters it, and size is a quality independent of individual sensory channels, but measured in relation to ourselves. In this case I feel that the distance around Charging Bull from which people can view the whole thing in unimpaired in any significant way. People who feel the space around the sculpture has become a part of the work are equating the semantic content that the work presents with the work itself. The sense of power and motion in Di Modica's sculpture touches our instincts about how much space to give it. But those distances are personal, and exist in our psychic space rather than in real space. In real space, the only kind of distance over which one can speak of damaging an art work is by impairing the ability to view it in full. How people feel about Charging Bull is a personal matter, but it's misleading to conflate the experience of contemplating it from a given spatial point with the content of the work itself. We have become used to thinking of the sculpture as dominating the space around it, but the space is no more part of the work than the Louvre is part of the Mona Lisa.