It's not about being mutually exclusive at all. The point is if there is a strong and valid choice that creators can use, then is there such a pressing need to demonize copyright?
"It's not about it being mutually exclusive, it's just mutually exclusive!"
Well the summit just dedicated an entire afternoon to discussing a global Creative Commons platform for copyright reform, so... if you think loving/promoting CC and being extremely concerned about the state of copyright are mutually exclusive, I've got bad news for you.
You should *probably* actually listen to the podcast before making yourself sound like an idiot, because it doesn't say what you seem to think it does.
Less important than the "prejudicial to the author's honor and reputation" part is the part that says there must be "distortion, mutilation, or other modification of [the] work"
The critical thing here is that the bull itself was not modified or interfered with in any way. You can argue that its meaning has been modifying, but that's not what the law requires: it requires that the work be modified.
Allowing an interpretation of "distorted, mutilated or modified the work" that includes situations where the work was not changed or touched in any way whatsoever would be one hell of a legal slippery slope.
Re: Re: Re: Wrong, the little girl statue is using the bull statue
Are you honestly asking that question?
The law doesn't exist to serve anyone's arbitrary whims. Most artists aren't huge fans of bad reviews either — that doesn't mean they get to have them removed and be paid recompense.
You seem to be confused. Nobody is complaining about the placement of the bull. The artist who created the bull is complaining about the placement of the girl.
I'm not really sure what you're saying, or what distinction you're trying to make.
His two points are: "here are two reasons that I have the legal right to remove the Fearless Girl, and be awarded monetary damages". What separation am I supposed to be making there between "legal" and "valid"? It's a request that is both ridiculous under the law and, IMO, wrong under the spirit and purpose of public artwork.
If the city lets you put up your cage, then sure. Why not? Why should the artist get to magically assert his will over space that he doesn't own and has no right to, where he placed his art without any agreed-upon stipulations about how it must be displayed?
Like I said: if you don't want someone putting stuff up near or around your art, there are plenty of ways to get it displayed where the owner of the space will allow you a degree of control and input regarding what goes around it that you can agree upon in advance. You don't get to drop your work in a public area with no permission, then claim you deserve control over the space *around* the spot where it ended up.
*The guy does have a point. The point is actually quite obvious, and if you don't see that you are stupid.
His only problem is that he doesn't have a legal point.*
Yes, and instead of simply expressing his opinion on the matter, he hired lawyers and got them to write up a legal argument for why believes he has a right to have the statue forcibly removed.
So whatever legitimate personal point he may have been able to make, he chose not to do that - he chose to turn this into a legal argument with widespread implications for the world of art. That's on him - and now he officially does not have a point.
Did you honestly just characterize an *extremely straightforward* piece of artistic symbolism as "denying reality to get your agenda through"? Come on... get off your high bull.
Plus... just... come on - the bull has been standing there as one of the most famous statues in the country for nearly 30 years. You're honestly saying that if it was yours, then the moment the Girl went up you'd throw your hands in the air and say "well, that was a failure and a waste of time, I guess I'll never make a sculpture again"?
Why should I sculpt more art for people to see if they will copy my style right next to it to change the point I was getting across.
I'd suggest that if you aren't open to other people commenting on your art in a public space by creating their own, you should NOT be doing guerrilla statue installations on city-owned property. You should stick to getting your work exhibited in galleries where you can reach a contractual agreement beforehand about how you want it displayed.
Besides, the "I won't create any more art if you do this!" threat is very unconvincing when held up against someone actively trying to have a piece of art censored. Which one of those things is a more concrete, immediate danger to the promotion and proliferation of art?
I'm not really defending or promoting it, just pointing out the contradiction of attacking Webster over its irregularities.
Personally, as a writer, I love having two whole major branches of the linguistic tree to draw even the most basic words from, and a supremely malleable system of structure and syntax. But I admit I can't imagine trying to learn it as a second language (plenty of people seem to manage just fine, mind you).
I always imagine myself trying to explain why, of the following four virtually indistinguishable statements, only three would ever be used while the fourth sounds instantly wrong, and why each one has a subtly different meaning (and failing to explain successfully):
- You do, do you? - You do, don't you? - You don't, do you? - You don't, don't you?
Webster mostly tried to simplify the language and remove oddities like silent letters. He's the reason you write "center" instead of "centre" and the reason for dopping the "u" from words like "honour". He was a major proponent of making English spelling more consistent and better matched to pronunciation.
Of course, many of his proposals - iland, tung, determin - didn't exactly stick.
Sorry if that wasn't clear - it's YOUR location that matters. On any of our products, if Teespring detects you are outside the US, it will give you the option to choose fulfillment centers.
There are a lot of types of "responsibility". I'd say many platforms have a social responsibility to be part of an ongoing process to help encourage quality content and discourage false, abusive, etc. content, and that we as their users and customers should hold them partly accountable on that front. They have a role to play and I'd like to see them be/remain a committed, productive part of the conversation. That's not the same as saying they don't have a right to run their platform however they want.
On the post: This Week In Creative Commons History
Re: Re: Re:
It's not about being mutually exclusive at all. The point is if there is a strong and valid choice that creators can use, then is there such a pressing need to demonize copyright?
"It's not about it being mutually exclusive, it's just mutually exclusive!"
Are you even trying to be coherent?
On the post: This Week In Creative Commons History
Re:
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 119: Does Pharma Really Need Patents?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 119: Does Pharma Really Need Patents?
Re:
On the post: No, The Wall St. Bull Sculptor Doesn't 'Have A Point'
Re: Moral rights
Less important than the "prejudicial to the author's honor and reputation" part is the part that says there must be "distortion, mutilation, or other modification of [the] work"
The critical thing here is that the bull itself was not modified or interfered with in any way. You can argue that its meaning has been modifying, but that's not what the law requires: it requires that the work be modified.
Allowing an interpretation of "distorted, mutilated or modified the work" that includes situations where the work was not changed or touched in any way whatsoever would be one hell of a legal slippery slope.
On the post: No, The Wall St. Bull Sculptor Doesn't 'Have A Point'
Re: Re: Re: Wrong, the little girl statue is using the bull statue
Are you honestly asking that question?
The law doesn't exist to serve anyone's arbitrary whims. Most artists aren't huge fans of bad reviews either — that doesn't mean they get to have them removed and be paid recompense.
On the post: No, The Wall St. Bull Sculptor Doesn't 'Have A Point'
Re:
On the post: No, The Wall St. Bull Sculptor Doesn't 'Have A Point'
Re: Wrong, the little girl statue is using the bull statue
On the post: No, The Wall St. Bull Sculptor Doesn't 'Have A Point'
Re:
will girl be what it is without the bull? clearly, not. thus it is an extension previous work.
That is not, in and of itself, legally relevant.
On the post: No, The Wall St. Bull Sculptor Doesn't 'Have A Point'
Re: Re: Re:
His two points are: "here are two reasons that I have the legal right to remove the Fearless Girl, and be awarded monetary damages". What separation am I supposed to be making there between "legal" and "valid"? It's a request that is both ridiculous under the law and, IMO, wrong under the spirit and purpose of public artwork.
On the post: No, The Wall St. Bull Sculptor Doesn't 'Have A Point'
Re: Re: Re:
Like I said: if you don't want someone putting stuff up near or around your art, there are plenty of ways to get it displayed where the owner of the space will allow you a degree of control and input regarding what goes around it that you can agree upon in advance. You don't get to drop your work in a public area with no permission, then claim you deserve control over the space *around* the spot where it ended up.
On the post: No, The Wall St. Bull Sculptor Doesn't 'Have A Point'
Re:
*The guy does have a point. The point is actually quite obvious, and if you don't see that you are stupid.
His only problem is that he doesn't have a legal point.*
Yes, and instead of simply expressing his opinion on the matter, he hired lawyers and got them to write up a legal argument for why believes he has a right to have the statue forcibly removed.
So whatever legitimate personal point he may have been able to make, he chose not to do that - he chose to turn this into a legal argument with widespread implications for the world of art. That's on him - and now he officially does not have a point.
On the post: No, The Wall St. Bull Sculptor Doesn't 'Have A Point'
Re:
On the post: No, The Wall St. Bull Sculptor Doesn't 'Have A Point'
Re:
Plus... just... come on - the bull has been standing there as one of the most famous statues in the country for nearly 30 years. You're honestly saying that if it was yours, then the moment the Girl went up you'd throw your hands in the air and say "well, that was a failure and a waste of time, I guess I'll never make a sculpture again"?
On the post: No, The Wall St. Bull Sculptor Doesn't 'Have A Point'
Re:
Why should I sculpt more art for people to see if they will copy my style right next to it to change the point I was getting across.
I'd suggest that if you aren't open to other people commenting on your art in a public space by creating their own, you should NOT be doing guerrilla statue installations on city-owned property. You should stick to getting your work exhibited in galleries where you can reach a contractual agreement beforehand about how you want it displayed.
Besides, the "I won't create any more art if you do this!" threat is very unconvincing when held up against someone actively trying to have a piece of art censored. Which one of those things is a more concrete, immediate danger to the promotion and proliferation of art?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: LETS see...
Personally, as a writer, I love having two whole major branches of the linguistic tree to draw even the most basic words from, and a supremely malleable system of structure and syntax. But I admit I can't imagine trying to learn it as a second language (plenty of people seem to manage just fine, mind you).
I always imagine myself trying to explain why, of the following four virtually indistinguishable statements, only three would ever be used while the fourth sounds instantly wrong, and why each one has a subtly different meaning (and failing to explain successfully):
- You do, do you?
- You do, don't you?
- You don't, do you?
- You don't, don't you?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: LETS see...
Webster mostly tried to simplify the language and remove oddities like silent letters. He's the reason you write "center" instead of "centre" and the reason for dopping the "u" from words like "honour". He was a major proponent of making English spelling more consistent and better matched to pronunciation.
Of course, many of his proposals - iland, tung, determin - didn't exactly stick.
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: April 2nd - 8th
Re: By “Half-Hour” And “Hour” ...
On the post: Time Is Running Out! Get Your Necessary Hashtags Gear This Weekend
Re: But
On the post: Real Talk About Fake News
Re:
There are a lot of types of "responsibility". I'd say many platforms have a social responsibility to be part of an ongoing process to help encourage quality content and discourage false, abusive, etc. content, and that we as their users and customers should hold them partly accountable on that front. They have a role to play and I'd like to see them be/remain a committed, productive part of the conversation. That's not the same as saying they don't have a right to run their platform however they want.
Next >>