How did it get to this?

marc
> still trying to digest this…
>
> http://www.clancco.com/art_law/mass_moca_counterclaims_arguing_buchel_project_is.html
>
>
> The most elucidating part of MASS MoCA's defense is predicated on
> affirmative defenses that should arouse suspicion and distrust on the
> part of any visual artist toward any cultural institution. Out of the
> twenty-nine affirmative defenses, MASS MoCA is claiming that Buchel's
> counterclaims are barred because "the materials that are the subject
> matter of [Buchel's] Counterclaims do not contain sufficient original
> expression on the part of Buchel to be protected under the [U.S.]
> Copyright Act."
>
> Alternatively, MASS MoCA argues that Buchel's counterclaims are barred
> because MASS MoCA is "a joint owner of any copyright in the Materials
> which are the subject matter of Buchel's counterclaims."
>
> More alarming is MASS MoCA's argument that they are the lawful owners
> of the materials which are the subject matter of this dispute, and
> thus allowed to display them publicly.
>
> But this isn't the end of this wonderful yarn of fiction. MASS MoCA
> further argues that Buchel's work is not even art, but simply a
> compilation of materials which, if accepted by the Court, would not be
> granted protection under the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA).
> If in fact the Court decides that VARA does apply, MASS MoCA argues
> that any modification to the "materials" which may have happened is
> allowed by VARA under the "conservation or placement" exception,
> and/or that the doctrine of "fair use" would allow MASS MoCA to
> display Buchel's project without infringing the Copyright or VARA Acts.
>
>

I just did a quick search and post turnaround, starting w/ ken Johnson's
Boston Globe article here:

Mass MoCA: "sad, dumb, and shameful"
http://newsgrist.typepad.com/underbelly/2007/07/mass-moca-sad-d.html

On 7/26/07, marc garrett <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org> wrote:
>
> How did it get to this?
>
> marc
> > still trying to digest this…
> >
> >
> http://www.clancco.com/art_law/mass_moca_counterclaims_arguing_buchel_pro=
ject_is.html
> >
> >
> > The most elucidating part of MASS MoCA's defense is predicated on
> > affirmative defenses that should arouse suspicion and distrust on the
> > part of any visual artist toward any cultural institution. Out of the
> > twenty-nine affirmative defenses, MASS MoCA is claiming that Buchel's
> > counterclaims are barred because "the materials that are the subject
> > matter of [Buchel's] Counterclaims do not contain sufficient original
> > expression on the part of Buchel to be protected under the [U.S.]
> > Copyright Act."
> >
> > Alternatively, MASS MoCA argues that Buchel's counterclaims are barred
> > because MASS MoCA is "a joint owner of any copyright in the Materials
> > which are the subject matter of Buchel's counterclaims."
> >
> > More alarming is MASS MoCA's argument that they are the lawful owners
> > of the materials which are the subject matter of this dispute, and
> > thus allowed to display them publicly.
> >
> > But this isn't the end of this wonderful yarn of fiction. MASS MoCA
> > further argues that Buchel's work is not even art, but simply a
> > compilation of materials which, if accepted by the Court, would not be
> > granted protection under the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA).
> > If in fact the Court decides that VARA does apply, MASS MoCA argues
> > that any modification to the "materials" which may have happened is
> > allowed by VARA under the "conservation or placement" exception,
> > and/or that the doctrine of "fair use" would allow MASS MoCA to
> > display Buchel's project without infringing the Copyright or VARA Act=
s.
> >
> >
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>



–
530 laguardia place #5, nyc 10012
http://joygarnett.com

Hey, guys. I've been kind of following this story. There have been a
number of articles, but here are some key ones, I think:

Background:
http://www.boston.com/ae/theater_arts/articles/2007/03/28/behind_doors_a_world_unseen/

Buchel's demands:
http://www.boston.com/ae/theater_arts/exhibitionist/2007/03/buechel_list_of.html

Op Ed:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2007/07/01/no_admittance/

And here's a nice piece by Nick Stillman, offering some art historical context:
http://www.nyfa.org/level3.asp?id`2&fid=4&sid=8

I don't know… I've heard both sides of the story. It's intense.





On 7/26/07, marc garrett <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org> wrote:
> How did it get to this?
>
> marc
> > still trying to digest this…
> >
> > http://www.clancco.com/art_law/mass_moca_counterclaims_arguing_buchel_project_is.html
> >
> >
> > The most elucidating part of MASS MoCA's defense is predicated on
> > affirmative defenses that should arouse suspicion and distrust on the
> > part of any visual artist toward any cultural institution. Out of the
> > twenty-nine affirmative defenses, MASS MoCA is claiming that Buchel's
> > counterclaims are barred because "the materials that are the subject
> > matter of [Buchel's] Counterclaims do not contain sufficient original
> > expression on the part of Buchel to be protected under the [U.S.]
> > Copyright Act."
> >
> > Alternatively, MASS MoCA argues that Buchel's counterclaims are barred
> > because MASS MoCA is "a joint owner of any copyright in the Materials
> > which are the subject matter of Buchel's counterclaims."
> >
> > More alarming is MASS MoCA's argument that they are the lawful owners
> > of the materials which are the subject matter of this dispute, and
> > thus allowed to display them publicly.
> >
> > But this isn't the end of this wonderful yarn of fiction. MASS MoCA
> > further argues that Buchel's work is not even art, but simply a
> > compilation of materials which, if accepted by the Court, would not be
> > granted protection under the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA).
> > If in fact the Court decides that VARA does apply, MASS MoCA argues
> > that any modification to the "materials" which may have happened is
> > allowed by VARA under the "conservation or placement" exception,
> > and/or that the doctrine of "fair use" would allow MASS MoCA to
> > display Buchel's project without infringing the Copyright or VARA Acts.
> >
> >
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

thanks Marisa – I will add the two Boston Globe articles to the rest of the
batch on newsgrist… it is really intense….

On 7/26/07, Marisa Olson <marisa@rhizome.org> wrote:
>
> Hey, guys. I've been kind of following this story. There have been a
> number of articles, but here are some key ones, I think:
>
> Background:
>
> http://www.boston.com/ae/theater_arts/articles/2007/03/28/behind_doors_a_=
world_unseen/
>
> Buchel's demands:
>
> http://www.boston.com/ae/theater_arts/exhibitionist/2007/03/buechel_list_=
of.html
>
> Op Ed:
> http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2007/07/01/no_admittance/
>
> And here's a nice piece by Nick Stillman, offering some art historical
> context:
> http://www.nyfa.org/level3.asp?id=602&fid=4&sid=8
>
> I don't know… I've heard both sides of the story. It's intense.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 7/26/07, marc garrett <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org> wrote:
> > How did it get to this?
> >
> > marc
> > > still trying to digest this…
> > >
> > >
> http://www.clancco.com/art_law/mass_moca_counterclaims_arguing_buchel_pro=
ject_is.html
> > >
> > >
> > > The most elucidating part of MASS MoCA's defense is predicated on
> > > affirmative defenses that should arouse suspicion and distrust on the
> > > part of any visual artist toward any cultural institution. Out of the
> > > twenty-nine affirmative defenses, MASS MoCA is claiming that Buchel=
's
> > > counterclaims are barred because "the materials that are the subject
> > > matter of [Buchel's] Counterclaims do not contain sufficient origin=
al
> > > expression on the part of Buchel to be protected under the [U.S.]
> > > Copyright Act."
> > >
> > > Alternatively, MASS MoCA argues that Buchel's counterclaims are bar=
red
> > > because MASS MoCA is "a joint owner of any copyright in the Materials
> > > which are the subject matter of Buchel's counterclaims."
> > >
> > > More alarming is MASS MoCA's argument that they are the lawful owners
> > > of the materials which are the subject matter of this dispute, and
> > > thus allowed to display them publicly.
> > >
> > > But this isn't the end of this wonderful yarn of fiction. MASS MoCA
> > > further argues that Buchel's work is not even art, but simply a
> > > compilation of materials which, if accepted by the Court, would not be
> > > granted protection under the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA).
> > > If in fact the Court decides that VARA does apply, MASS MoCA argues
> > > that any modification to the "materials" which may have happened is
> > > allowed by VARA under the "conservation or placement" exception,
> > > and/or that the doctrine of "fair use" would allow MASS MoCA to
> > > display Buchel's project without infringing the Copyright or VARA
> Acts.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > +
> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>



–
530 laguardia place #5, nyc 10012
http://joygarnett.com

>This situation is simply fucked.

Agreed. I have to say, as an artist I can't imagine negotiating the
situation as Buchel has done. This reads like an instruction booklet for
what not to do. And it could end up having really bad reverberations for
folks on both sides…

On 7/26/07, T.Whid <twhid@twhid.com> wrote:
>
> I can see both sides too. They're both making it harder for institutions
> to mesh with artists. This is a no-win situation for anyone.
>
> Buchel's actions are going to lead to more restrictive contracts for
> artists when dealing with museums.
>
> MASS MoCA's actions, if accepted by the courts, are going to require
> artists to deal with institutions from a more hostile stance as museum's
> could simply co-opt a work without the artists agreement if they're
> ridiculous claims are upheld.
>
> This situation is simply fucked.
>
> On 7/26/07, Marisa Olson <marisa@rhizome.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hey, guys. I've been kind of following this story. There have been a
> > number of articles, but here are some key ones, I think:
> >
> > Background:
> >
> > http://www.boston.com/ae/theater_arts/articles/2007/03/28/behind_doors_=
a_world_unseen/
> >
> > Buchel's demands:
> > http://www.boston.com/ae/theater_arts/exhibitionist/2007/03/buechel_lis=
t_of.html
> >
> >
> > Op Ed:
> > http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2007/07/01/no_admittan=
ce/
> >
> >
> > And here's a nice piece by Nick Stillman, offering some art historical
> > context:
> > http://www.nyfa.org/level3.asp?id=602&fid=4&sid=8
> >
> > I don't know… I've heard both sides of the story. It's intense.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 7/26/07, marc garrett <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org> wrote:
> > > How did it get to this?
> > >
> > > marc
> > > > still trying to digest this…
> > > >
> > > > http://www.clancco.com/art_law/mass_moca_counterclaims_arguing_buch=
el_project_is.html
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The most elucidating part of MASS MoCA's defense is predicated on
> > > > affirmative defenses that should arouse suspicion and distrust on
> > the
> > > > part of any visual artist toward any cultural institution. Out of
> > the
> > > > twenty-nine affirmative defenses, MASS MoCA is claiming that
> > Buchel's
> > > > counterclaims are barred because "the materials that are the subject
> > > > matter of [Buchel's] Counterclaims do not contain sufficient
> > original
> > > > expression on the part of Buchel to be protected under the [U.S.]
> > > > Copyright Act."
> > > >
> > > > Alternatively, MASS MoCA argues that Buchel's counterclaims are
> > barred
> > > > because MASS MoCA is "a joint owner of any copyright in the
> > Materials
> > > > which are the subject matter of Buchel's counterclaims."
> > > >
> > > > More alarming is MASS MoCA's argument that they are the lawful
> > owners
> > > > of the materials which are the subject matter of this dispute, and
> > > > thus allowed to display them publicly.
> > > >
> > > > But this isn't the end of this wonderful yarn of fiction. MASS MoCA
> > > > further argues that Buchel's work is not even art, but simply a
> > > > compilation of materials which, if accepted by the Court, would not
> > be
> > > > granted protection under the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990
> > (VARA).
> > > > If in fact the Court decides that VARA does apply, MASS MoCA argues
> > > > that any modification to the "materials" which may have happened is
> > > > allowed by VARA under the "conservation or placement" exception,
> > > > and/or that the doctrine of "fair use" would allow MASS MoCA to
> > > > display Buchel's project without infringing the Copyright or VARA
> > Acts.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > +
> > > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> > http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > > +
> > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.p=
hp
> >
> > >
> >
> > +
> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
>
>


–
530 laguardia place #5, nyc 10012
http://joygarnett.com

But you have to enjoy how the name of the piece has become the focus of the legal action.
"Training Ground for Democracy."
nice

Eric Dymond wrote:
> But you have to enjoy how the name of the piece has become the focus of the legal action.
> "Training Ground for Democracy."

Is the entire event (including the lawsuit) a performance around this theme?

- Rob.

yes it is! – if only they knew :(

On 7/26/07, Rob Myers <rob@robmyers.org> wrote:
>
> Eric Dymond wrote:
> > But you have to enjoy how the name of the piece has become the focus of
> the legal action.
> > "Training Ground for Democracy."
>
> Is the entire event (including the lawsuit) a performance around this
> theme?
>
> - Rob.
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>



–
530 laguardia place #5, nyc 10012
http://joygarnett.com

Thanks T.Whid :-)

marc
> Hi Marc,
>
> More here:
> http://newsgrist.typepad.com/underbelly/2007/07/mass-moca-sad-d.html
>
> On 7/26/07, *marc garrett* <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org
> <mailto:marc.garrett@furtherfield.org>> wrote:
>
> How did it get to this?
>
> marc
> > still trying to digest this…
> >
> >
> http://www.clancco.com/art_law/mass_moca_counterclaims_arguing_buchel_project_is.html
> <http://www.clancco.com/art_law/mass_moca_counterclaims_arguing_buchel_project_is.html>
> >
> >
> > The most elucidating part of MASS MoCA's defense is predicated on
> > affirmative defenses that should arouse suspicion and distrust
> on the
> > part of any visual artist toward any cultural institution. Out
> of the
> > twenty-nine affirmative defenses, MASS MoCA is claiming that
> Buchel's
> > counterclaims are barred because "the materials that are the subject
> > matter of [Buchel's] Counterclaims do not contain sufficient
> original
> > expression on the part of Buchel to be protected under the [U.S.]
> > Copyright Act."
> >
> > Alternatively, MASS MoCA argues that Buchel's counterclaims are
> barred
> > because MASS MoCA is "a joint owner of any copyright in the
> Materials
> > which are the subject matter of Buchel's counterclaims."
> >
> > More alarming is MASS MoCA's argument that they are the lawful
> owners
> > of the materials which are the subject matter of this dispute, and
> > thus allowed to display them publicly.
> >
> > But this isn't the end of this wonderful yarn of fiction. MASS MoCA
> > further argues that Buchel's work is not even art, but simply a
> > compilation of materials which, if accepted by the Court, would
> not be
> > granted protection under the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990
> (VARA).
> > If in fact the Court decides that VARA does apply, MASS MoCA argues
> > that any modification to the "materials" which may have happened is
> > allowed by VARA under the "conservation or placement" exception,
> > and/or that the doctrine of "fair use" would allow MASS MoCA to
> > display Buchel's project without infringing the Copyright or
> VARA Acts.
> >
> >
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org <mailto:list@rhizome.org>
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org <mailto:info@rhizome.org>
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>

would a creative commons agreement avoided this silliness?
don't we enjoy a more advanced degree of ownership and rights with virtual art?
i find the whole issue quite primitive.
Eric

and as an aside, what if the work was executed on Second Life, and why wasn't it?
I guess the Linden Dollar conversion would have been too much.

Hi Joy,

Thanks for the extra info - I don't know if I am getting jaded or
something but for some reason I possess no empathy for both parties.

I just hope that it does not ruin things for everyone else…

marc
> I just did a quick search and post turnaround, starting w/ ken
> Johnson's Boston Globe article here:
>
> Mass MoCA: "sad, dumb, and shameful"
> http://newsgrist.typepad.com/underbelly/2007/07/mass-moca-sad-d.html
>
> On 7/26/07, *marc garrett* <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org
> <mailto:marc.garrett@furtherfield.org>> wrote:
>
> How did it get to this?
>
> marc
> > still trying to digest this…
> >
> >
> http://www.clancco.com/art_law/mass_moca_counterclaims_arguing_buchel_project_is.html
> >
> >
> > The most elucidating part of MASS MoCA's defense is predicated on
> > affirmative defenses that should arouse suspicion and distrust
> on the
> > part of any visual artist toward any cultural institution. Out
> of the
> > twenty-nine affirmative defenses, MASS MoCA is claiming that
> Buchel's
> > counterclaims are barred because "the materials that are the subject
> > matter of [Buchel's] Counterclaims do not contain sufficient
> original
> > expression on the part of Buchel to be protected under the [U.S.]
> > Copyright Act."
> >
> > Alternatively, MASS MoCA argues that Buchel's counterclaims are
> barred
> > because MASS MoCA is "a joint owner of any copyright in the
> Materials
> > which are the subject matter of Buchel's counterclaims."
> >
> > More alarming is MASS MoCA's argument that they are the lawful
> owners
> > of the materials which are the subject matter of this dispute, and
> > thus allowed to display them publicly.
> >
> > But this isn't the end of this wonderful yarn of fiction. MASS MoCA
> > further argues that Buchel's work is not even art, but simply a
> > compilation of materials which, if accepted by the Court, would
> not be
> > granted protection under the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990
> (VARA).
> > If in fact the Court decides that VARA does apply, MASS MoCA argues
> > that any modification to the "materials" which may have happened is
> > allowed by VARA under the "conservation or placement" exception,
> > and/or that the doctrine of "fair use" would allow MASS MoCA to
> > display Buchel's project without infringing the Copyright or
> VARA Acts.
> >
> >
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org <mailto:list@rhizome.org>
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org <mailto:info@rhizome.org>
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>
>
>
> –
> 530 laguardia place #5, nyc 10012
> http://joygarnett.com