After scanning and reading some of the articles assigned I feel as though appropriation, and copyright each have their own times to happen. In one case, where appropriation is used, and a method of transformative art happens copyright seems to be pointless. As the art in question has been changed significantly to identify something like a collage, verses ready-made or a direct divination of one object. When using a direct copy and not changing the subject in question in the least bit, that's infringing on what someone else has made. However, if the piece being copied is not used for profit, charity, or individual learning, or given express permission for copying to happen, then that is copyright infringement. Idea or not, some credit should be given.
Appropriation for art, using something all ready made by someone, if given permission or changing beyond easy recognition, for art is much more acceptable.
Lastly, the ideal that every idea, every image and other creative, or not creative item should be given for free is crap. Every idea can not be given, nor image, or software. Someone's got to make their living doing something, and with that living, they have to make money. To pay rent, to buy food, to live in general in our society, what it all boils down to is money. If you want to give something out for free, that's fine, just don't expect every one else to.
No comments:
Post a Comment