- This topic has 66 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 14 years, 6 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Thanks, Koishii. 😀 I just went through 7 of 35 pages of dark_zorse’s “Discovered” postings from early 2008. Finally got to where the pictures of the Jade Emperor were actually posted instead of just talked about, only to find the images removed. 😡
I have several pieces in Emerald and love the color, but I wish Windstone would do some more in Jade ……deliberately, not by accident…..and enough so that we wouldn’t get trampled in the rush. I do like that Jade Emperor!
syn789 wrote:Thanks, Koishii. 😀 I just went through 7 of 35 pages of dark_zorse’s “Discovered” postings from early 2008. Finally got to where the pictures of the Jade Emperor were actually posted instead of just talked about, only to find the images removed. 😡
I have several pieces in Emerald and love the color, but I wish Windstone would do some more in Jade ……deliberately, not by accident…..and enough so that we wouldn’t get trampled in the rush. I do like that Jade Emperor!
LOL. I like saving photos to my hard drive 😈
Oh I know! I love my scratcher. I whined a little when I read the box that the emp. was in was listed as Emerald.
I’ll admit this is a confusing matter for me.
What distinguishes Windstones as they type of product they are? Are they art pieces or commercial product? Legally, an artist has all rights to the artwork unless otherwise specified by contract, and it cannot be modified, distributed, destroyed, etc without permission. Obviously Windstones have been destroyed at least without permission, but I was wondering, legally, where all this falls? When talking to a copyright attorney at one point, I posed the question, “If someone buys my painting, can they then paint over it or otherwise change or mark it?” And I was told that legally, no.. they may not, without permission. I suspect that Windstones fall somewhere outside of this (is each considered an ‘original’? What about OOAK artist edition pieces??) but I wasn’t sure how far it could go! At what point does it become a derivative work?Volunteer mod- I'm here to help! Email me for the best response: nambroth at gmail.com
My art: featherdust.comIf they were considered individual artist pieces then would that become a conflict with them being recognized as a commercial product, allowing them the trade dress? That is just a blind gues though. Computers makes more sense then these complicated laws.
So if you buy a painting, you can’t just paint white all over it and do your own painting on top without the original artist’s permission? >.> That just doesn’t sit well with me. If an artist sells a piece of work, it seems to me that said work is no longer their concern (or the concern of anyone else). If they don’t want it burned in effigy or painted over or what-have-you, they shouldn’t sell it in the first place – or they should make the buyer sign a contract saying they won’t screw with it, before it’s even sold. And what if the artist is dead? If the artist IS dead, who decides whether their permission is granted or not? And what constitutes ‘permission’? Written contract? Verbal agreement? What if the buyer is underage, and therefore could not be held accountable for any contracts they entered into? It could be said that NOT having the buyer sign a contract like that is unspoken permission, but obviously the legal system sees art as different from, say…a couch, and has decided, in their infinite wisdom, to screw with personal property owner rights in this instance. But then again, who is it that defines art? Some people consider couches art. I look at DA every day, and wonder what some of those people think they’re doing, claiming that cellphone-quality snapshots of nothing but the crotch of some naked young girl is ‘artistic’ enough to be put on a site called “deviantART” – it comes across as nothing but them pandering to the masses who want free, easy-access pr0n. But all they have to do is say “This is art”, and thus, it is – whether it’s a couch or a nudie pic. Makes me want to slap them upside their heads, but it’s nothing we can do anything about. Anything and everything can be ‘art’ if someone says or thinks it is…so can we not even eat off a paper plate (which would, in effect, damage and/or change it) without it being illegal anymore? Because you know what? I bet there’s someone out there who thinks paper plates are ART, and that each and every one is unique (because technically, there’s no possible way any of them are *exactly* alike!).
That was sarcasm, by the way. I do not believe paper plates are art, or unique, personally. Just letting you know, in case you didn’t catch the tone.
I can see how it might be illegal to just ‘enhance’ the original work, or add to it – and then try to sell it as completely your own creation, but to wipe the canvas clean and do something completely different on it? Who cares? Sure, the world is losing a piece of unique art (assuming it’s OOAK), and the original artist MIGHT be sad or offended, but a house fire could cause the same thing. So could a toddler with a permanent marker. Does it even matter if the change or damage is deliberate or not?
What it all boils down to for me is that if you pay for something, you should be able to do whatever you please to it (with the exception of animals). You’re the owner, and I wasn’t aware the definition of that word had changed, but then again, the government is just so full of special new ideas these days, it wouldn’t surprise me if they tried to rewrite the dictionary to suit them. I feel like if someone is dumb enough to sell, say…the Mona Lisa to me, knowing there’s a chance I’ll spit on it, pour turpentine on it, or give it to my dog to sleep on, they’re taking that risk unless they restrict the buyer pool to only those that agree not to do so. They traded their rights to the piece (if not the idea) for money, imo.
You own the artwork, but you do not own the copyright.
If you gesso over a painting, you destroy the artwork. The artist didn’t create the canvas, just what was on it. With a sculpture however, it is different because the sculpture is part of the artwork itself. That’s where it gets tricky.
You can have 12 different artist paint over the same canvas, and you’ll never know who painted on it first. If 12 people paint on a Windstone, you can guarantee we’d all be able to pick out Melody’s sculpting work. 🙂
Ah, but if you smashed the sculpture into dust, made it into clay, and then made a whole new, completely different and original sculpture, would THAT be illegal? That’s my question. >.> I don’t mean painting over it, because obviously that wouldn’t change a sculpture the same way it would a painting…
Nope, copyrights protect the reselling/using of someone’s “creative idea”. If you destroy it, the creative idea is not there to use. It’s pretty much raw materials at that point. 😆 *cringes from a mental image of a Windstone being smashed!!*
If some new wacked-out copyright law is in effect that I don’t know about, someone tell me otherwise. 😈
Hmm, that’s what I thought, too…
Well, what if you smashed it up into dust, made it into clay, made a new original sculpture…but sold it as “Sculpture made from clay made from dust of Windstone!!” ? 😀
… you’re makin’ ma head hurt! LOL! 😈 😆
kitsunelady wrote:Hmm, that’s what I thought, too…
Well, what if you smashed it up into dust, made it into clay, made a new original sculpture…but sold it as “Sculpture made from clay made from dust of Windstone!!” ? 😀
I’d have to ask why you’d do that in the first place and question your sanity.
Rusti wrote:kitsunelady wrote:Hmm, that’s what I thought, too…
Well, what if you smashed it up into dust, made it into clay, made a new original sculpture…but sold it as “Sculpture made from clay made from dust of Windstone!!” ? 😀
I’d have to ask why you’d do that in the first place and question your sanity.
Modern Art
KoishiiKitty wrote:Rusti wrote:kitsunelady wrote:Hmm, that’s what I thought, too…
Well, what if you smashed it up into dust, made it into clay, made a new original sculpture…but sold it as “Sculpture made from clay made from dust of Windstone!!” ? 😀
I’d have to ask why you’d do that in the first place and question your sanity.
Modern Art
I question the sanity of Modern Artists as well … 😛
I imagine if you had a badly damaged, beyond repair windstone that had been very special to you, you could grind it up and keep the powder in an urn, or use the dust to create something new to memorialize the deceased windstone.
😀
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
