From: Adam Hyman (email suppressed)
Date: Wed Nov 19 2008 - 10:57:56 PST
I actually think the underlying issue is more interesting at this point than the complexities of legalities.
Should people screen work if the artist doesn't want it screened?
What if the work is part of the essential experimental canon (for lack of a better term), can be seen as essential to any student's education in it, and yet is not available for screening (as is currently the case with Conner's films)?
If I am putting together a show of an artist's work, and am consulting with the artist about what they want to show, and he or she says "No, I don't want to screen this piece," then I won't screen it. This is fair.
I would not use the DVD of Conner's work that I obtained from the Michael Kohn Gallery for a screening. I think Conner's films should be screened as films.
But any student learning about American experimental film needs to see some of Conner's work (in my opinion). But these films are not currently in distribution, Conner didn't allow schools to buy those unlimited public performance rights (as I understand it). Should we just allow those films to be forgotten? (or made more legendary?)
Anyway, the Conner films might be the only example of this, so a policy might not need to be established. We hope that his family will eventually get the films (as prints) back into circulation.
A variant on this is something that Mark Toscano and I have talked a bit about in regards to Robert Nelson. Nelson keeps working on his films, re-editing, etc. Should we screen the earlier versions of his films if we think they were great as they were? Should the artist actually be the only one to have final say about their films? I think we would all instinctively say yes. But from a preservation & exhibition angle, I think it can be more complicated.
>From: Fred Camper <email suppressed>
>Sent: Nov 19, 2008 9:47 AM
>To: email suppressed
>Subject: Re: Fair Use and unfair use
>Instead of the legal doctrine of "fair use," is no one on this list
>interested in the question of *actual* fairness, to anyone who cares
>about moving image art?
>Why not, instead of looking into what you can "get away with" under some
>univeristy lawyer's interpretation of copyright law, do what the film or
>video artist, or their estate, asks you to do? Why not avoid showing
>videos of films whose filmmakers have *never* authorized their works'
>transfer to film based on their own aesthetic principles? Why not pay
>rentals to the Coops, which provide money to filmmakers and keep films
>Yes, whine whine, the school will not provide money for rentals, whine
>whine. Why not try pushing harder? Why not use some of your perhaps
>meager or perhaps ample salary to rent things yourself if necessary?
>I know this is an issue that has been raised here before, and I'm not
>trying to start a huge thread, but I thought this needed to be said.
>Does no one think of the artist, unless that artist is you yourself?
>For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.