From: Ana Kronschnabl (email suppressed)
Date: Fri Mar 12 2004 - 02:53:36 PST
hhhmmm...this altercation reminds me of a film we made recently about the
_breakcore_ scene in music - it is a particularly eclectic form that takes
inspiration from many different pleaces.
since we have recently been interested in ideas posed by open source and
freeware, we were interested in how this could translate to ways of dealing
with copyright and ownership in music...maybe also moving image...
one of the main questions asked of many of the artists that create this type
of music was how they felt about their work being taken by other people and
being sent/posted on-line or even re-worked. they all replied that for them
it would be free advertising...so long as they get the credit. it seems to
me that there are certain cultures where using/re-using other peoples work
is integral to the work that is made and is really not an issue...
what do other people think about similar copyright/copyleft ideas...i will
post the url to the film when we have an on-line version...
for more information on opensource ideas for filmmaking etc see
http://www.plugincinema.com/plugin/articles/opensourcefilms.htm
ana
Ana Kronschnabl
http://www.plugincinema.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Camper" <email suppressed>
To: <email suppressed>
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 7:39 AM
Subject: Re: posting articles
From the Voice's main page:
"Copyright © <http://www.villagevoice.com/aboutus/fineprint.shtml> 2004
Village Voice Media, Inc., 36 Cooper Square, New York, NY 10003 The
Village Voice and Voice are registered trademarks. All rights reserved. "
David Tetzlaff wrote:
> Anyway, I.L. ITCH (udating Brecht for our times) says:
>
> STEALING INFORMATION IS NO CRIME COMPARED TO OWNING IT.
>
....thereby insulting every writer and editor who's ever made an effort
to publish something of interest. Carr's article is not "information,"
which cannot be copyrighted, it's a unique piece of writing that belongs
either to the Voice, or to the writer personally, depending on the
writer's particular deal with the newspaper.
I find it pretty revolting to see the lack of respect shown for the
basic rights of a writer -- one writing a sympathetic and
well-researched article that is exactly what I wanted to read, instead
of the back and forth rants we were treated to here a few weeks ago --
on a list where "artist's" rights certainly would be respected. Indeed,
I noticed this a few years ago when an entire movie capsule of mine was
posted here in a degraded form and without credit and no one else seemed
to see anything wrong with doing so. I guess people who write about
avant-garde film are considered dirt in the eyes of some here.
THE RIGHT WAY TO DO THIS IS TO LINK TO THE URL. To do anything else is
to show real disrespect for the writer and the publication. If you
really want to paste something in, and you're so convinced that such a
posting would be immaterial to the publication, then write them and get
permission.
A basic fact about copyright: copyright owners are advised to vigorously
protest against the abuse of their copyright, because failure to do so
could mean the loss of that copyright in the future.
Fred Camper
Chicago
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.