Comments on: Art for Art’s Sake: Is it Possible? http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2008/08/art-for-arts-sake-is-it-possible/ Copyright Information Tue, 16 Mar 2010 13:19:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: The Copyright Alliance Blog » Blog Archive » A Portrait of an Artist as a Self-Marketer http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2008/08/art-for-arts-sake-is-it-possible/#comment-3240 The Copyright Alliance Blog » Blog Archive » A Portrait of an Artist as a Self-Marketer Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:30:31 +0000 http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=278#comment-3240 [...] Some out there wish for a Yochai Benkler view of the world, one large kibbutz where art is created for art’s sake and somehow society makes sure artists get to eat. There are of course plenty of artists out there who do choose to create art for art’s sake, but some wish to support themselves with their art, as my colleague Lucinda has written. [...] [...] Some out there wish for a Yochai Benkler view of the world, one large kibbutz where art is created for art’s sake and somehow society makes sure artists get to eat. There are of course plenty of artists out there who do choose to create art for art’s sake, but some wish to support themselves with their art, as my colleague Lucinda has written. [...]

]]> By: Matt http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2008/08/art-for-arts-sake-is-it-possible/#comment-1777 Matt Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:57:23 +0000 http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=278#comment-1777 I wish people would stop using this phrase. A doctor won't tell you to exercise for exercise's sake. No one makes chairs for funiture's sake. Even painters don't paint for painting's sake; they do it because they love, are compelled or inspired to do it. So, please, stop using this term. It's divisive, comes with social baggage and doesn't nothing to advance the dialogue of culture in this county. Art doesn't have a sake, only artists do. I wish people would stop using this phrase. A doctor won’t tell you to exercise for exercise’s sake. No one makes chairs for funiture’s sake. Even painters don’t paint for painting’s sake; they do it because they love, are compelled or inspired to do it. So, please, stop using this term. It’s divisive, comes with social baggage and doesn’t nothing to advance the dialogue of culture in this county. Art doesn’t have a sake, only artists do.

]]> By: Patrick Ross http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2008/08/art-for-arts-sake-is-it-possible/#comment-1776 Patrick Ross Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:26:30 +0000 http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=278#comment-1776 John, I think you're distorting Lucinda's post here; I hope it is not intentional. I believe she is pointing out something that is inarguable; that copyright gives the creator a set of rights that includes controlling reproduction and distribution. We have developed over time a fair use approach in this country that applies limits to those rights of creators. But it is backwards to say that copyright law takes rights from others. The Constitution specifically empowers Congress to secure for authors and inventors "the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." It does not extend a right to consumers that is then braked by creators. Given that clarification, you should see that Lucinda's post was clearly articulating a utilitarian view of copyright, the same one promoted by Madison in the Federalist Papers when defending Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, the Progress Clause. Lucinda may have a moral rights perspective -- many artists do, although I don't know if she does -- but she did not articulate that here. And it is incorrect to say that European copyright is based on moral rights; that is certainly the tradition in France, but not necessarily in other countries or in the EU. I hope that was helpful. John,

I think you’re distorting Lucinda’s post here; I hope it is not intentional.

I believe she is pointing out something that is inarguable; that copyright gives the creator a set of rights that includes controlling reproduction and distribution. We have developed over time a fair use approach in this country that applies limits to those rights of creators. But it is backwards to say that copyright law takes rights from others. The Constitution specifically empowers Congress to secure for authors and inventors “the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” It does not extend a right to consumers that is then braked by creators.

Given that clarification, you should see that Lucinda’s post was clearly articulating a utilitarian view of copyright, the same one promoted by Madison in the Federalist Papers when defending Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, the Progress Clause. Lucinda may have a moral rights perspective — many artists do, although I don’t know if she does — but she did not articulate that here. And it is incorrect to say that European copyright is based on moral rights; that is certainly the tradition in France, but not necessarily in other countries or in the EU.

I hope that was helpful.

]]> By: Brian Owens http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2008/08/art-for-arts-sake-is-it-possible/#comment-1716 Brian Owens Sat, 23 Aug 2008 16:58:46 +0000 http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=278#comment-1716 Interesting point of view. I'll consider changing my mind about this but for now I still don't see things the same way you do. Interesting point of view. I’ll consider changing my mind about this but for now I still don’t see things the same way you do.

]]> By: John Gordon http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2008/08/art-for-arts-sake-is-it-possible/#comment-1690 John Gordon Fri, 22 Aug 2008 19:19:08 +0000 http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=278#comment-1690 I question your non-economic rationales for copyright law. "Copyright ensures that an artist is recognized as the sole creator of the work" - this only applies to certain narrowly defined limited-production works of visual art. There's no general "moral right" in US copyright law. General US copyright law does not include a right of attribution. It's not an absurd position to argue for broader moral rights, since that's the basis for European copyright - but, as you say, moral rights don't pay the bills, and don't contribute to the bottom line of the companies that fund you. And your other two points, the "ability to use and reuse" and "permission to distribute" aren't rights that copyright law gives to the artist, they are rights that copyright law takes away from others. If there were no copyright law, the artist could use, reuse, and distribute with complete freedom, as they can today (assuming they haven't been compelled to sell their copyright for a pittance). I question your non-economic rationales for copyright law.
“Copyright ensures that an artist is recognized as the sole creator of the work” - this only applies to certain narrowly defined limited-production works of visual art. There’s no general “moral right” in US copyright law. General US copyright law does not include a right of attribution. It’s not an absurd position to argue for broader moral rights, since that’s the basis for European copyright - but, as you say, moral rights don’t pay the bills, and don’t contribute to the bottom line of the companies that fund you.

And your other two points, the “ability to use and reuse” and “permission to distribute” aren’t rights that copyright law gives to the artist, they are rights that copyright law takes away from others. If there were no copyright law, the artist could use, reuse, and distribute with complete freedom, as they can today (assuming they haven’t been compelled to sell their copyright for a pittance).

]]>