Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: filmscanners: TOtally OT: re copyrights



Mr Moderator....would you please sort this berk out.......

Richard Corbett

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lynn Allen" <lalle@email.com>
To: <Filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 7:09 PM
Subject: filmscanners: TOtally OT: re copyrights


> < Since this post is mostly "FYI" coupled with a short "editorial," feel
> free to delete at any time. ;-) >
>
> A news item of passing interest appears in March 2001 "Art in America"
(last
> page).
>
> It seems that pop artist Barbara Kruger is being sued for copyright
> infringement by German photographer Thomas Hoepker, and (in a seperate
> suit), for invasion of privacy by Hoepker's model, Charolette Dabney, in
US
> District Court, New York City.
>
> For those not familiar with Kruger's paintings, she often takes clips from
> 1950-60s magazines and blows them up directly, half-tone dots and all, to
> 3'x6' proportions ala Warhol/Lichtenstein, adding clever political
comments
> of her own (usually of a feminist persuasion). Her work is interesting,
> well-done, amusing and thought-provoking, although probably more so as
> "political commentary" than as "art" with capital letters.
>
> Kruger's defense lawyers are arguing a "lapsed copyright" rather than the
> still-hazy "fair use" doctrine, so the case will have little if any
> implications on the latter issue. Seems that the  copyright had run when
> Kruger picked up the clip, and was then arguably in the public domain, but
> the copyright was renewed before she finished and exhibited her painting
in
> 1990; so almost any decision by the courts could result in further
muddying
> of the waters, and "bad law" in general. The defense has, naturally, moved
> for dismissal on grounds the case has no merit.
>
> While I know that many members of Filmscanners are photographers and
> probably take a dim view of someone making paintings of their published
> pictures, it's my thought that only an idiot or a lawyer could try to make
> the case that a painting, done in oil, enlarged to the point of caricature
> and further enhanced by the artist, would constitute a "reproduction" in
any
> commonly-understood meaning of the word. In fact, if I were Herr Hoepker
> (which I am not, BTW), I'd be secretly pleased that a painting based on my
> photo appeared in a New York gallery, and would be suing for Photo Credit
> and a small piece of the action, not copyright infringement! A small
matter,
> to be sure, but a nice ego trip. :-)
>
> Anyway, that's my take on it. If anyone wants to comment, it would be best
> to take it off-list (not you, Laurie--we've already covered that ground!
;-)
> ).
>
> Best regards--LR
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------
> FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com
> Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
>
>




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.