" But the only real
>basis you have to argue against advertisers, thus far, is when they're
>attempting to sell a *product* and not a *mindset*."
Dan K.
Ok, let's start with requiring payment and permission for product
attachment at least! Now interestingly enough, no problem! The law happens
to say that now. So now let's move over to art without product attachments.
All this stuff should be able to freely appropriate, so we'll need a NEW
law there that says so. It also would say, however, the attachment of a
product to existing art by advertising will remain as it is, requiring
payment and permission from the art maker/owner.
You have an excellent argument about the attachment of art to mindsets,
such as politics. However, since we're actually writing this law, I think
it should say that POLITICS will join advertising in a requirement for
payment and permission (unless donated) in order to use existing art in
their ads. The standard fair use exceptions ALSO remain in effect of course
- commentary, criticism, parody - so politics would still be able to
appropriate freely for those purposes of direct reference - as well as
video of their opponent taking a bribe etc.- as I guess they can now, but
this would protect their background music, for instance, from being
something that just doesn't want to be there as part of that public mindset
selling. Artists would not would have this right of refusal to being used
in another art works' public mindsetting of any kind.
"What you have a problem with is the concept of others introducing messages
>of their own--which, oops, is exactly what you do."
I do not have a problem with others introducing the most unexpected
messages of their own into existing work. - but its done in the process of
producing a new work. You're right, this is what I do. You might call me a
parasite... Hah, gotya!
I am saying we should have free appropriation for any form of free
expression. I see a clear difference, in status, in believability, in
integrity, in motive, in relative freedom of expression between PTP
appropriating, from any work to any other work in the creation of something
new, (let's call it art) as opposed to the commercial appropriation of the
same material for a third purpose which isn't the art work (it's the
sponsor), which tends to modify the free expression status of both the ad
itself and whatever art is in it, BOTH being perceptually compromised via
this CONTENT DETERMINATIVE ASSOCIATION with the sponsor. An ad is not free
expression and does not get free appropriation to make itself as if it were
free expression. This is really all about defining free expression vs
commercial expression. There IS a difference.
These are the mechanics of it as near as I can figure, but these are social
and cultural realities in human perception we should not ignore.
I am simply asking for a distinction in our new free appropriation law
between who can freely appropriate and who can't. We CAN decide such
things. There would be some of both in this new world never to be,
hopefully some of both for good reasons. Now there are none. Would you be
unable to get used to that?
DJ
Negativland
PS If ads would be significantly improved by freely appropriated material,
they can always offer an artist a gazillion dollars and get to use their
stuff... just like art is supposed to do now, but without the budget.
>> This attachment to an ulterior motive having nothing to do with a song's
>> original free expression should be a choice that artists are allowed to
>> make concerning the fate of their own work, but ONLY in the case of
>> advertising. No fair use in advertising because ADVERTISING IS NOT MORE
>> FREE EXPRESSION AND IT IS NOT MORE FREE SPEECH. It is paid propaganda for
>> commerce.
>
>...
>
>> Political ads are correctly named. They are ads, not artworks, (again, how
>> artistic they may be is irrelevant) and they too are in the paid service
>of
>> another product outside themselves which controls the content.
>
>When everything's commercial, your argument is easy. But politics breaks
>you down pretty hard, because the purpose of advertisement is not
>specifically to make you *buy* something, but, more generally, to make you
>*think* something. This thought may be along the lines of, "it's worth it
>to buy something", but it's just as easily, "it's worth it to vote for
>something" or even "it's worth it to believe in something."
>
>Nobody would argue that art can surely posess political impact and still
>remain art. Picasso's Guernica is considered "modern art's most powerful
>anti-war statement." Rage Against The Machine was kicked off of SNL for
>offending Steve Forbes, who was co-starring. Even Everlast's "What It's
>Like" qualifies as moderately serious pop-culture political agitation--name
>another major song in the last ten years that discusses the third rail of
>american politics.
>
>When you get down to it, your objection is less about secondary messages
>being mixed in with the artwork and more about the original artist having
>his messages changed. You almost certainly have no problem with Picasso,
>Rage, or Everlast delivering their own messages, and would defend them to
>your grave as those exercising freedom of expression and freedom of speech.
>
>What you have a problem with is the concept of others introducing messages
>of their own--which, oops, is exactly what you do.
>
>I believe in collaging, and I respect your work greatly. But the only real
>basis you have to argue against advertisers, thus far, is when they're
>attempting to sell a *product* and not a *mindset*. You promote mindsets,
>they promote products.
>
>I'm not sure how strong this is, and would be interested in a better
>"dividing line."
>
>Yours Truly,
>
> Dan Kaminsky, CISSP
> http://www.doxpara.com
----------------------------------------------------
Rumori, the Detritus.net Discussion List
to unsubscribe, send mail to majordomoATdetritus.net
with "unsubscribe rumori" in the message body.
----------------------------------------------------
Rumori list archives & other information are at
http://detritus.net/contact/rumori
----------------------------------------------------
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
N© Detritus.net. Sharerights extended to all.