[NetBehaviour] Cariou vs. Prince: THE COPYRIGHT BUNGLE
rob at robmyers.org
Sat Apr 2 14:01:00 CEST 2011
On 02/04/11 00:03, bob catchpole wrote:
> On 02/04/11 0:27, Rob Myers wrote:
> "Yes"?... that the documentary photography of Andre Kertesz, Robert
> Frank, Bill Brandt, Diane Arbus, W. Eugene Smith, Josef Koudelka, Inge
> Morath, Raghu Rai, August Sander, Dorothea Lange, Henri Cartier-Bresson,
> Walker Evans, Eve Arnold, Ernest Cole, Lewis Hine, Lee Friedlander,
> Philip Jones Griffiths, Brassai, Richard Avedon etc etc doesn't qualify
> as 'art'?
It qualifies (at one time or another) as trespass, common assault, theft
of property and labour, infringing copying of copyrighted art/graphic
design/industrial design/architecture/ship hulls, harassment, commercial
photography without permission, breach of personality rights, breach of
privacy rights, alleged child pornography, failure to acquire a model
release, defamation of character, forgery, and improper use of hazardous
materials. It is also, as any judge can see, simply a mechanical
reproduction of other people's property to the extent that it
competently reproduces a recognizable image of it.
If we apply the same standard to documentary photography that we are
being asked to apply to other art, not only is it not art but it should
be seized and destroyed and its subjects or their descendants
compensated by the photographer or their estate.
This may seem ridiculous, but that's only because it is.
Both in the case of documentary photographers and in the case of Prince.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the NetBehaviour