[x] Checking In
Jim Andrews
jim at vispo.com
Thu Mar 29 16:17:08 CDT 2018
Thanks very much, Rob. It sounds like you have looked into copyright in
Canada rather well--like you look into whatever you look into. I'll pick
up a copy of Murray and Troscow.
ja
On 3/29/2018 2:07 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
> The Prince case was fascinating but it was in the US, so it doesn't
> set a precedent for Canada.
>
> There are two problems you'll encounter researching this area.
>
> 1. Most resources are for the US, and so cover Fair Use rather than
> Fair Dealing, and concentrate on US legal precedents.
>
> 2. Most resources that are for Canada have been written by people who
> want to enforce copyright increasingly strongly rather than get
> creative with Fair Dealing.
>
> All that said, if your library has a copy of "Canadian Copyright - A
> Citizen's Guide" by Murray & Trosow that's a good resource that looks
> at the relevant law in a balanced way.
>
> - Rob.
>
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018, at 1:40 PM, Jim Andrews wrote:
>>
>> Hi Deanne,
>>
>> Adeena's friend Bob Kasher cited the Richard Prince case
>> (
>> https://www.artinamericamagazine.com/news-features/news/richard-prince-wins-major-victory-in-landmark-copyright-suit/
>> )
>> in his claim that "you have no copyright concerns (see above link).
>> Prince vs. Rastafarian set the copyright precedent here for all
>> imagery use. As long as you are distorting, collaging it etc. you own
>> it. It doesn't matter where it came from."
>>
>> If somebody used my work in the way I've used this work, I'd be OK
>> with it as long as they didn't make a significant sum from it. If
>> they did that, I'd want some recompense.
>>
>> So I'm still pretty confused about the legality.
>>
>> ja
>>
>>
>> On 3/29/2018 1:19 PM, Deanne Achong | Dia Media wrote:
>>> Hi Jim,
>>>
>>> Great question.
>>> Miles has covered the “legalese” angle very well:)
>>>
>>> I’ve used a lot of “found images” - in general I stay within stuff
>>> that is at least 50 years old, which doesn’t always cover copyright
>>> (thanks to that pesky Mickey Mouse) but if I found it via
>>> archive.org <http://archive.org> for example, it usually does:)
>>>
>>> My 2 cents would be this:
>>>
>>> 1. Richard Prince did that piece where he used Instagram images and
>>> then sold them for a pretty penny. This is totally kosher and almost
>>> normal for his practice and all those other academic arguments . I
>>> think in general the non-art public was quite insulted and hurt.
>>> (which is a funny word to use, but people feel attached to their
>>> images, whether or not they “should”.) Also yup, maybe it was just a
>>> strategy to re-raise his profile.
>>>
>>> 2. When I used to teach, I would ask students, how would you feel if
>>> someone took your artwork and used it as you are planning to do? If
>>> the answer if “outraged” or any variation thereof, then the answer
>>> about using it clear. At least from an ethical perspective.
>>>
>>> 3. Whoops that’s 3 cents:) - anything on the internet appears in a
>>> database that is probably up for grabs. I’ve seem some of my
>>> photographs used to sell things on Craigslist. Slightly amusing,
>>> minor ruffling of feathers, and a general shrugging of my shoulders.
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Deanne
>>>
>>>
>>> Deanne Achong
>>> GoodyBank
>>> Digital Strategy + Design Studio
>>> https://goodybank.com
>>> 604-708-4185
>>>
>>> +> https://www.deanneachong.com - ART
>>> ++>> https://www.instagram.com/piquette/
>>>
>>>> On Mar 29, 2018, at 1:02 PM, Jim Andrews <jim at vispo.com
>>>> <mailto:jim at vispo.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Right. So it's OK as long as it's completely inconsequential.
>>>>
>>>> ja
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 3/29/2018 12:58 PM, Miles Thorogood wrote:
>>>>> That sounds about the gist of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018, 12:51 PM Jim Andrews <jim at vispo.com
>>>>> <mailto:jim at vispo.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, Miles. My reading of the below is that it implies
>>>>> http://vispo.com/aleph3/an.html?d=Adeena%20Karasick%201
>>>>> is OK as long as no money is involved and it doesn't go viral.
>>>>> As soon as it becomes popular or somebody wants to buy a copy
>>>>> of Aleph Null that contains Checking In, all bets are off.
>>>>>
>>>>> ja
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3/29/2018 12:32 PM, Miles Thorogood wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Jim,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not a legal expert so don't consider this legal advice.
>>>>>> At one point I was asking a similar question regarding what
>>>>>> my students are*allowed* to do in terms of using digital
>>>>>> assets in their work. The UBCO library gave us some useful
>>>>>> resources that I will share with you here. I'll skip the
>>>>>> content of public domain images and obtain permissions and
>>>>>> jump straight to piece on fair dealing and the remix exceptions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Fair dealing exception*
>>>>>> Fair dealing is a user right contained in the Copyright Act
>>>>>> that allows you to copy from a copyrighted work, without the
>>>>>> copyright owner's permission, if:
>>>>>> 1. The copy is for the purposes of
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * Research
>>>>>> * Private Study
>>>>>> * Education
>>>>>> * Criticism or Review
>>>>>> * Parody or Satire
>>>>>> * News reporting
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. The use is “fair”…
>>>>>> Dealing can be considered fair based on:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Non-Commercial User-Generated Content Exception*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * AKA the “Mash-Up Exception”
>>>>>> * Allows individuals to use a published work to create and
>>>>>> communicate a new work, as long as:
>>>>>> * the purpose is strictly non-commercial;
>>>>>> * you use a legal copy of the original work;
>>>>>> * you identify the author and source of the original work; and
>>>>>> * the new work does not adversely impact the copyright
>>>>>> owner of the original.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I hope some of this is useful for your cause.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Miles
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 11:24 AM, Jim Andrews <jim at vispo.com
>>>>>> <mailto:jim at vispo.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm unsure of the legality of a piece that I've created
>>>>>> with the poet Adeena Karasick. I wonder if those in the
>>>>>> know on legal use of images might tell me what you think.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The piece is at
>>>>>> http://vispo.com/aleph3/an.html?d=Adeena%20Karasick%201
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best experienced on a desktop/laptop machine, though it
>>>>>> runs OK on mobile devices. Click the aleph at top left to
>>>>>> toggle display of the controls.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The text is Adeena's. She owns it for sure. No problem
>>>>>> there. It's the text of her new book Checking In coming
>>>>>> out soon from Talonbooks in Vancouver. And the
>>>>>> programming is mine. The program the piece is in is one I
>>>>>> wrote called Aleph Null 3.0.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The issue is the images in the background and the images
>>>>>> used to fill the text.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Adeena selected 208 images from the net and from her own
>>>>>> images for me to use in this piece. She didn't get them
>>>>>> by license in google image search. She just picked the
>>>>>> most relevant images for the text of the project.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> She and a friend of hers think this is legal use of these
>>>>>> images. I'm not so sure. What do you think?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I really like the piece itself. And Adeena's text is
>>>>>> terrific. But I am quite unsure about the legalities of
>>>>>> image use. And it isn't the 90's anymore. Things are
>>>>>> changing. Google recently changed their image search so
>>>>>> that you have to visit the site on which the image is
>>>>>> located before you can save it. And of course there's the
>>>>>> whole Facebook data issue. People are re-examining
>>>>>> ownership of digitized/digital stuff.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ja
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> x mailing list
>>>>>> x at vispo.com <mailto:x at vispo.com>
>>>>>> http://vispo.com/mailman/listinfo/x_vispo.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> x mailing list
>>>>>> x at vispo.com <mailto:x at vispo.com>
>>>>>> http://vispo.com/mailman/listinfo/x_vispo.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> x mailing list
>>>>> x at vispo.com <mailto:x at vispo.com>
>>>>> http://vispo.com/mailman/listinfo/x_vispo.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> x mailing list
>>>>> x at vispo.com <mailto:x at vispo.com>
>>>>> http://vispo.com/mailman/listinfo/x_vispo.com
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> x mailing list
>>>> x at vispo.com <mailto:x at vispo.com>
>>>> http://vispo.com/mailman/listinfo/x_vispo.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> x mailing list
>>> x at vispo.com <mailto:x at vispo.com>
>>> http://vispo.com/mailman/listinfo/x_vispo.com
>>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________
>> x mailing list
>> x at vispo.com <mailto:x at vispo.com>
>> http://vispo.com/mailman/listinfo/x_vispo.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> x mailing list
> x at vispo.com
> http://vispo.com/mailman/listinfo/x_vispo.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://vispo.com/pipermail/x_vispo.com/attachments/20180329/f8f36422/attachment.htm>
More information about the x
mailing list