sorry: mr damon's nmasca.blog link:
http://nmazca.com/blog/arch/2004_03_01_archive.htm#108055172851312438


On Tue, 30 Mar 2004, Joy Garnett wrote:

> found today:
>
> Who owns the rights to this man's struggle?
>
> <image> <image>
>
> 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.
>
> Another noteworthy point is this: "No one has asked if the photographer
> obtained permission to capture the image of the person throwing the
> molotov? Why's that? We should believe that someone owns the rights to an
> image because they snapped a shutter, while the person photographed is
> merely a landscape?" Thus, my original question: Who owns the right to
> this man's struggle?
>
> Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to burn a copy of The Grey Album.
>
> mr damon 04:15 [p-link]
>
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>