BlankTime for a Debate…
Is the Institution pulling rank?
I mean, is this really real? It can't be. I would not of thought that the G=
etty Museum would even bother wasting their precious time with something so=
trivial unless they are suddenly becoming the FBI. If the Getty has decide=
d to pick on Curt - Furtherfield will begin a massive Net campaign/debate a=
bout issues of bullying & abuse to smaller art's organisations. They may ha=
ve the right to cause unrest and the power to use the Law but they are mora=
lly wrong in their action. Curt is innocent until proven guilty. If there i=
s evidence contradicting such; then a polite message should be enough when =
asking the image in question to be removed.
There could be a more undrlying issue emerging here, in relation to artists=
being supported by net organisations (usually for free) are challenging la=
rger insitutions just by existing, for many net art groups are being visite=
d regularly, with an increasing a global presence. What does everyone else =
think?
Marc garrett
> >I understand that you are not hosting the image but any display of
> >the image without a proper license is illegal. From our terms and
> >conditions - Any use of the image without such a license from Getty
> >Images is unauthorized. A license is needed in order to receive
> >permission to reproduce or manipulate this image. I know that you
> >can only assume that the image was licensed but I am telling you
> >that it is not, therefore all displays, including yours, is
> >unauthorized. We have the right to contact the isp host to ask for
> >cooperation when they have even less involvement in the content -
> >Under Section 512© of the Copyright Act, known as the Digital
> >Millennium Copyright Act, upon notice of infringement, in order to
> >take advantage of limitation of liability, qualified Internet
> >Service Providers must expeditiously remove the infringing material.
> >From the photographers perspective, who has asked us to represent
> >and protect his work, his image is featured on your site and is
> >being used to promote a good or service. This type use requires a
> >license and a fee or is considered copyright infringement.
> There could be a more underlying issue emerging here, in relation to artists being supported by net organisations (usually for free) are challenging larger insitutions just by existing, for many net art groups are being visited regularly, with an increasing a global presence. What does everyone
else think?
>
hi marc, I agree its worrying, I tend to think that simply a case of some anal jobsworth
with time on their hands but…
What worries me most about this is they believe they have the power to control the ISP.
Hopefully Joy's copyright info will be helpful and they'll back off - but it makes me
wonder if this kind of tactics will make ISP's shy away from forms of artwork and sites
that may include controversial imagery - even if the legality of these site can be 'proved'.
They may feel that they could be open for prosecution. Wasn't there a court case (in the
UK, I think) about a year ago when an ISP was successfully prosecuted for hosting a
site where there was some dialogue in the chatroom that was considered libellous?Even
though the ISP called on the right of free speech, and that they themselves had not
made these comments they were fined and temporarily closed for hosting the chatroom
where the comment had taken place….??? I think thats right, I can't remember the
details as I just saw a quick piece on the news…
hmmm.
jess.