embedded in the floating world
|
nmazca.blog embedded in the floating world |
|
 Yesterday afternoon I clicked over to Amberglow and noticed a mixed-up, tiled version of the painting, Molotov, above. That blog's author mentioned legal action that PepsiCo had brought against the painter, one Joy Garnett, after her "Riot" series was shown at a NYC gallery. Scores of freedom-minded, art-savvy, anti-corporate bloggivists have since risen in (virtual) solidarity with Ms. Garnett, posting either the same image or variations thereof (this is my favorite) in order to assert artists' rights. This collective action has been called JoyWar. I was excited by all of this, and I decided that I too would take up the fight against Pepsi and its heavy-handed intellectual-property bullying. But that would have to wait until after I bought a couple of birdfeeders and tidied up the back patio. So... those tasks completed, I sat down to stick to it The Cola Man. Only to find out that Pepsi was not the litigant at odds with Ms. Garnett. It is, in fact, the photographer whose image Garnett had downloaded and used as the source for her painting (typical for the content of "Riot"). I discovered this little wrinkle in the Molotov story after -- say it ain't so! -- taking the time to read the backstory. One particular comment on another blog -- in regard to attribution that Garnett didn't give to this unnamed, world-famous female Magnum photographer -- left me wondering "So who is it?" Susan Meiselas. Very attentive readers of nmazca.blog will recall the bit that I posted about her book, Carnival Strippers, back in October. Meiselas' photo of a Sandinista fighter was made during her coverage of the armed struggle against the Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua... which later turned into a struggle against the Reagan-sanctioned, CIA-backed Contras. "This is obviously not a case of an artist protecting [her] speech rights but of one artist using [her] copyrights as a way to censor another artist." Is that so? I would say not, and I'm fairly liberal with access and use of my own images. The major factor is attribution, if not permission. It can't be assumed that a grainy photo from a not-so-long ago war is in the public domain. Is it sufficient to make a general statement about the use of others' images, make comments about reinterpretation and altered contexts, and then present the work for sale (again, without credit given to the original creator)? Garnett uses found images, also, and it would be too much to expect attribution with those. But this other bit is tricky, and I wouldn't be so hasty to dismiss Meiselas' assertion... although her bit about never showing the painting again, come on. I'm concerned about originality on one hand, and freedom to adapt on the other. Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to burn a copy of The Grey Album. Who owns the rights to this man's struggle? |
|
|||||||||||||||
