4 ms·

> David Slater has already admitted that the monkeys found a camera he had left out by accident But he still picked up the camera. He still decided not to tras

> David Slater has already admitted that the monkeys found a camera he had left out by accident But he still picked up the camera. He still decided not to trash the photos. > are the other pictures not copyrighted? It's subtle. They are copyrighted of course. However, if you repurpose someone's work in a way that is completely different from the intended (Andy Baio's case wasn't different enough, btw), you may claim copyright. See Richard Prince's Marlboro man.

joeyh 15y ago
I was swimming in a river and picked up a rock. I like it's shape. I must own its copyright! insanity
- bluekeybox 15y ago
  Not insanity at all. Look up "found object as art" (Marcel Duchamp's readymades etc.) The whole concept of art in the 20th century was redefined by this idea. Copyrighting ideas is deeply entrenched in contemporary art. As a matter of fact, contemporary art is entirely about ideas as opposed to craft.
  - nate_meurer 15y ago
    Good grief. Duchamp didn't just pick things up and put them on display. That's not what Found Art means, and it never has. Duchamp's art depends crucially on his creative modifications. Same goes for his Dada contemporaries and even moreso for later surrealists. How about this: go find yourself a rock, tell some people you own the copyright on its shape, (or better yet, its "idea" as you say) and tell us how they respond. Yes, you are allowed to use family members. > As a matter of fact, contemporary art is entirely about ideas as opposed to craft. Dare I ask you to back this one up?
    - bluekeybox 15y ago
      > Duchamp didn't just pick things up and put them on display. The very act of "picking up" is art. As a matter of fact, everything associated with an artist is art. When an artist farts, it could be considered art if the artist intended so. Please, don't tell me that those "modifications" were somehow more important than the very act of recognizing/curating. Important -- yes perhaps -- but more important than "picking up"? No. > Dare I ask you to back this one up? I spent roughly five years studying contemporary art and it is a very general conclusion, a piece of "wisdom" so to speak, that I came to through my experience with contemporary art. I doubt that any single example I bring up will satisfy you (you will then claim that it's anecdotal evidence). Perhaps this piece of "wisdom" has been mentioned somewhere by some art critic, but I don't have any literature at my hand right now, and scouring Google could be too selective (you can usually confirm anything by performing a Google search). Basically, you have to take what I said at face value (or consider how many years you spent studying art and whether to go along with what I said or come up with your own piece of wisdom).
      - nate_meurer 15y ago
        Wow, so let me get this straight. Anything an artist touches or otherwise considers qualifies as art. Since any representations of such are immediately and automatically copyrighted, I am threatened with the prospect that my own art is inevitably infringing on countless copyrights. Sort of gives new meaning to the phrase "maximal copyright" doesn't it? Thankfully, reading the second part of your comment reassures me. It's rare that I encounter an appeal to authority where the supposed authority is the party appealing. 5 years of study not withstanding, your comment below about "anyone who understands art" gives me enough information to properly categorize your arguments.
        bluekeybox 15y ago
        > Anything an artist touches or otherwise considers qualifies as art. Not literally, but that's the general gist of it. It all depends on context. > I am threatened with the prospect that my own art is inevitably infringing on countless copyrights. Look. If you are an artist, not only do you infringe on countless "copyrights" (have to use quotation marks because I am not talking about literal copyright), but many other artists also infringe on yours. There. EDIT: Have to expand a bit on copyright. The reason I wasn't talking about copyright in a literal way is because art has its own system for dealing with "copyright" infringement (actually a superior one, one that is closer to how free market works than to how law works), distinct from legal action. Legal action usually only comes in when (a) there is significant money involved, (b) when hard evidence could be readily used, and (c) when dealing with low-end and mass markets such as popular photography. Hard evidence in art is usually very difficult to come by (as you might have gathered from my "appeal to own authority" response). The system for dealing with copying is simply that when a work is labeled derivative by a large enough number of people in-the-know, its value in the high-end market evaporates. Most other spheres (e.g. tangible goods market) don't have such system in place and therefore have to rely on the legal concept of copyright. ANOTHER EDIT: Seems like you are a kernel hacker, so my hat is off to you. Just want to let you know that the concepts we are talking about in art do not translate well into software (derivative software is still useful, often more so than what it was derived from, while unoriginal art is just that).
icebraining 15y ago
>They are copyrighted of course. Who owns it, then? >However, if you repurpose someone's work in a way that is completely different from the intended (Andy Baio's case wasn't different enough, btw), you may claim copyright. Sure, but that wasn't done for any of the picture he didn't choose.
- bluekeybox 15y ago
  > Sure, but that wasn't done for any of the picture he didn't choose. In which case the following holds: the picture is copyrighted by the individual (a legal subject) who pressed the shutter or, in case the button presser is not a legal subject (i.e. an animal), by the owner of the camera, or, in case the work is commissioned on special terms, by the entity who commissioned the work.
  - icebraining 15y ago
    But is that law? I've never seen the ownership of the camera being used to determine copyright ownership.
    - bluekeybox 15y ago
      I am not a lawyer. However, if law is rational (and I hope to God it is!), it will be codified/applied in a vaguely similar way. In your mind at least, you can equate owning a camera to "paying"/commissioning a work. Many different entities (stock photography websites) take away your copyright in exchange for cash. You can consider the act of giving a non-legal entity a camera as an act of "enabling" (commisioning) photos to be taken on it.

joeyh 15y ago

I was swimming in a river and picked up a rock. I like it's shape. I must own its copyright! insanity

bluekeybox 15y ago
Not insanity at all. Look up "found object as art" (Marcel Duchamp's readymades etc.) The whole concept of art in the 20th century was redefined by this idea. Copyrighting ideas is deeply entrenched in contemporary art. As a matter of fact, contemporary art is entirely about ideas as opposed to craft.
- nate_meurer 15y ago
  Good grief. Duchamp didn't just pick things up and put them on display. That's not what Found Art means, and it never has. Duchamp's art depends crucially on his creative modifications. Same goes for his Dada contemporaries and even moreso for later surrealists. How about this: go find yourself a rock, tell some people you own the copyright on its shape, (or better yet, its "idea" as you say) and tell us how they respond. Yes, you are allowed to use family members. > As a matter of fact, contemporary art is entirely about ideas as opposed to craft. Dare I ask you to back this one up?
  - bluekeybox 15y ago
    > Duchamp didn't just pick things up and put them on display. The very act of "picking up" is art. As a matter of fact, everything associated with an artist is art. When an artist farts, it could be considered art if the artist intended so. Please, don't tell me that those "modifications" were somehow more important than the very act of recognizing/curating. Important -- yes perhaps -- but more important than "picking up"? No. > Dare I ask you to back this one up? I spent roughly five years studying contemporary art and it is a very general conclusion, a piece of "wisdom" so to speak, that I came to through my experience with contemporary art. I doubt that any single example I bring up will satisfy you (you will then claim that it's anecdotal evidence). Perhaps this piece of "wisdom" has been mentioned somewhere by some art critic, but I don't have any literature at my hand right now, and scouring Google could be too selective (you can usually confirm anything by performing a Google search). Basically, you have to take what I said at face value (or consider how many years you spent studying art and whether to go along with what I said or come up with your own piece of wisdom).
    - nate_meurer 15y ago
      Wow, so let me get this straight. Anything an artist touches or otherwise considers qualifies as art. Since any representations of such are immediately and automatically copyrighted, I am threatened with the prospect that my own art is inevitably infringing on countless copyrights. Sort of gives new meaning to the phrase "maximal copyright" doesn't it? Thankfully, reading the second part of your comment reassures me. It's rare that I encounter an appeal to authority where the supposed authority is the party appealing. 5 years of study not withstanding, your comment below about "anyone who understands art" gives me enough information to properly categorize your arguments.
      - bluekeybox 15y ago
        > Anything an artist touches or otherwise considers qualifies as art. Not literally, but that's the general gist of it. It all depends on context. > I am threatened with the prospect that my own art is inevitably infringing on countless copyrights. Look. If you are an artist, not only do you infringe on countless "copyrights" (have to use quotation marks because I am not talking about literal copyright), but many other artists also infringe on yours. There. EDIT: Have to expand a bit on copyright. The reason I wasn't talking about copyright in a literal way is because art has its own system for dealing with "copyright" infringement (actually a superior one, one that is closer to how free market works than to how law works), distinct from legal action. Legal action usually only comes in when (a) there is significant money involved, (b) when hard evidence could be readily used, and (c) when dealing with low-end and mass markets such as popular photography. Hard evidence in art is usually very difficult to come by (as you might have gathered from my "appeal to own authority" response). The system for dealing with copying is simply that when a work is labeled derivative by a large enough number of people in-the-know, its value in the high-end market evaporates. Most other spheres (e.g. tangible goods market) don't have such system in place and therefore have to rely on the legal concept of copyright. ANOTHER EDIT: Seems like you are a kernel hacker, so my hat is off to you. Just want to let you know that the concepts we are talking about in art do not translate well into software (derivative software is still useful, often more so than what it was derived from, while unoriginal art is just that).

icebraining 15y ago

>They are copyrighted of course. Who owns it, then? >However, if you repurpose someone's work in a way that is completely different from the intended (Andy Baio's case wasn't different enough, btw), you may claim copyright. Sure, but that wasn't done for any of the picture he didn't choose.

bluekeybox 15y ago
> Sure, but that wasn't done for any of the picture he didn't choose. In which case the following holds: the picture is copyrighted by the individual (a legal subject) who pressed the shutter or, in case the button presser is not a legal subject (i.e. an animal), by the owner of the camera, or, in case the work is commissioned on special terms, by the entity who commissioned the work.
- icebraining 15y ago
  But is that law? I've never seen the ownership of the camera being used to determine copyright ownership.
  - bluekeybox 15y ago
    I am not a lawyer. However, if law is rational (and I hope to God it is!), it will be codified/applied in a vaguely similar way. In your mind at least, you can equate owning a camera to "paying"/commissioning a work. Many different entities (stock photography websites) take away your copyright in exchange for cash. You can consider the act of giving a non-legal entity a camera as an act of "enabling" (commisioning) photos to be taken on it.