Galactica06, 45X88", acrylic on canvas, 2006. Copyright © Tim Noonan. This painting took about one month to complete as I layered upon layer of applications; some wet, some dry, poured, thrown, scraped, dripped etc... I decided upon the title as the piece emerged and grew like a galaxy bursting through the layers of time.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Pages
Contributors
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(223)
-
▼
November
(20)
- Top Ten Painter's Painters
- Digital Copyright Reform Podcast
- 252.wintstream
- Chinese Relativity: Part 1
- PAINTJAM
- Lynda J. Perry's Windowscapes
- 251.canadiancolour-shore
- Tom Thomson's $1 Million Algonquin Sketch
- Sheila Gregory at the Lonsdale Gallery
- The Art of Pricing Great Art
- The Canadian Copy-Fight: Copyright, Culture, and t...
- Ginger Strand’s Loft
- galactica06
- Genesis Turn It On Again Tour Europe
- Whatever Happened to Abstract Painting?
- 326,234 Art Collectors in Canada
- You Call That Art?
- 250.birdsix
- skystreak
- 249.lakeplay
-
▼
November
(20)
Links
- mr anchovy
- Artblog Comments
- absolutearts.com
- Gnostic Candy Minx
- Stan Repar
- Julie Himel
- BuzzFeed
- Arts Journal.com
- childrensillustrators.com
- Art Gallery of Ontario Blog
- Heffel.com
- signandsight
- Roberts Gallery
- Technorati Profile
- Kirk Armstrong
- Jonathan Seet
- Musicisart
- Bullfrog Power
- National Geographic
- UTP Journals
5 comments:
Do you think that saying this image is copyright Tim Noonan will have any effect on somebody using or not using the image or claiming it as their own? I notice you've uploaded it through Flickr, so you must have your settings on 'public'. The way I see it, if you put it on the inner-nets (as dubya calls it), it's pretty much fair game. The notion of copyright is changing, and I don't understand yet just where it is going....but clearly downloading of music changed everything. We can say you can't share, but people do share, because they can. This is costing record companies a lot of money. It isn't clear if it is bad or good for musicians....maybe bad for the ones promoted by the machine and good for the rest? I'm not sure.
I hoping that people who might want to claim it as their own won't. Is it "fair game" by being posted on the internet? As far as I'm concerned for people to view, why not have a look see to see what I'm doing? Afterall I'm the creator of the piece. Serious contenders/offenders can't exactly present my work to a client or gallery without the actual piece. I suppose by using various technologies someone actually could print it onto large scale canvas and sell it or hang it in their place. Though that seems like a lot of effort, and they would be in trouble if when caught. The main issue for me is that by putting copyright Tim Noonan, viewers will understand that I painted the piece, it's my creation and I am the artist. You and I take that for granted because we know each other, but a random viewer hastily might not make the connection. Music is another story, illegal downloads via sharing both enhance the musician's audience but also stiff their profits. How this translates to our art in the raw(ie: non-commercial, it's not an album cover yet or any other potential venue), I am unsure as well. I do think that the internet has a positive potential to have our art gain exposure beyond that which is achieved by slides mailed out to galleries. I hope that you or I are not ripped off somehow by hacks exploiting the internet for profit. And that we are protected by the fact that we created our pieces. Incidentally you still can’t view any Flickr content behind most corporate firewalls (Blocked Category: Personal Network Storage and Backup). Whether this means I should not use flickr for artwork is ponderous.
Well, consider this. In the posts above this one and below this one, you posted photos that I don't think you took. I'll bet you didn't track down the photographer and ask permission, or even give credit. Now, what if somebody used your image on their blog without your permission? Isn't it the same thing? What if they took it and altered it then made paintings from it and sold them for squillions of dollars? Now you might say, well, I was linking to the site. I think that with books, it is acceptable to quote a passage for educational use. People who post MP3s of copyright material sometimes post a caviot, like for educational use only, or this mp3 link will only be active for a few days. But isn't that just putting parameters around how much the law might be broken? It is grey area though, because the courts in Canada seem to be saying that sharing music by downloading is OK.
On the internet, everything is instant and easy. I can go to any site and drag an image off the page and post it anywhere I want. Is that illegal? Is it more illegal if the picture says copyright Tim Noonan under it?
When is the folk process - the passing down of songs and stories and dance and so on - a copyright issue? Woody Guthrie said that he didn't exactly write songs - they were just there and he snatched them. So Woody took the melody to Wabash Cannonball and changed the lyrics to make it Grand Coolee Dam. Was he infringing on copyright?
What I'm saying is that the internet has messed with notions of copyright that were tested in court way before computer technology. This technology made it simple to break the rules and difficult to get caught. Open season.
My painting is my painting - but if I put a picture of one or a digital image on mister anchovy, I do it expecting that somebody might use that image for a purpose I don't like. I'm not going to try to fight that, because it is impossible. I could avoid posting any pictures and guard my copyright - but at the same time, I want to make use of this marvellous medium. What to do?
My blog would be boring without pictures of my work, so I suppose that I'm taking my chances as you say. But if I post other pictures by other people, it is as you say because it was out there anyway. Personally I consider that in doing so, I'm sharing something that was already posted and the link would take a viewer back to the original post and due credits. If someone links my image to their blog, that's a compliment which I hope gives me due credit.
How would I know if someone appropriated my image or piece of it(for altering) is beyond my knowledge. I think that it would be ok if I could not recognize it, but how would I know? If it is the folk process, ok. I take pride in not manipulating other photos posted on the internet. I have viewed several dozens of images on flickr which could potentially provide me with amazing jumping off points for manipulation and further painting, but I don't do that. I'm a professional and my intention is to keep it that way when it comes to my art. I hope that others have similar positions on borrowing. That said, If I was to see an exhibition which was inspiring to me, I might dash to the studio and paint, or maybe not. I wouldn't be sitting in front of a piece copying moves.
Uh oh, I'm heading into another direction now, which might be summed up somewhere by Carl Jung; but there is no way to stop collective inspirations and creative impulses. How does one even begin to escape art history and all the styles that have come and gone, only to find them resurfaced again? The point is that there is very little that we can do to stop the potential misappropriation of our artwork. The new information technology is a form of mass consciousness, which as you say made it simple for people to break the rules. I don't know what to do either. I hope that someone would have the honour to ask permission. Consider though that maybe culture is in the beginning stages of a new enlightenment or something and that by posting and sharing links of art and stuff you and I are part of a bigger "ism" than merely our blogs alone.
Cheers!
Sorry to be so slow in catching up to these comments. I think it would be both hilarious and folly for someone to steal a pic of a painting off someones blog and claim it as their own...interesting to see if they could suppply it if someone wanted it! Besides, people steal ideas from other artists all the time. Not the same protection as musicians have by copyrighting their notes for notes. Remember when a Dentyne commercial came out and it sounded like Tom Waits singing? He sued and they had to pull the song because the courts felt he had a very specific sound and style. They faked a Tom Waits sound for the ad, but still they weren't allowed to do so...
Post a Comment