Quote :

"ELECTRONIC END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR VIEWING ILLEGAL ART EXHIBIT WEBSITE AND FOR USE OF LUMBER AND/OR PET OWNERSHIP NOTICE TO USER: BY METABOLIZING YOU ACCEPT ALL THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, USE OF YOUR HOME AND CAR BY THE AUTHORS OF THIS AGREEMENT. This Website End User License Agreement accompanies the Web Pages and related explanatory materials ("Crap"). The term "Crap" also shall include any upgrades, modified versions, or repaintings of the Website licensed to you by either The Prince of Wales, a sentient washing machine, or my old Rabbi (the one who used profanity). Please read this Agreement carefully. At the end, you will be asked to accept this agreement and provide this Website with a warm, lingering, creepy hug. If you do not wish to accept this Agreement, simply click the "I do not accept" button while forcefully shoving your computer off the back of your desk ("Card Table"). Upon your acceptance of this Agreement, this Website grants to you a nonexclusive license to use this Website or your own Shoes ("The Dressy Ones"), provided that you agree to the following: 1. Use of the Website. 1.1 You may use this Website on a hard disk or other storage device. On a scrap of drywall with a Sharpie, install and use the Website on a file server or a tomato server for use on a network or a VHS copy of the motion picture "Network" or for the purposes of (i) permanent installation onto the small of your back at the base of your spine via a tattoo or other storage devices or (ii) for providing the illusion of working while at work (using the following methods of deception: looking intently at the screen, moving the mouse, and typing decisively on the keyboard); and make backup copies of the Website for later printing and spreading out in an alley to make a nice bed. 1.2 You may make and distribute unlimited copies of the Website, including copies for commercial distribution, as long as each copy that you make and distribute contains this Agreement and is created in one of the following media: carved out of ice, as in an ice sculpture centerpiece; smeared in mustard on the side of a white or off-white panel van; or taught to a parrot who is then condemned to fly the earth for eternity, incessantly repeating the mantra of this Website. 2. Copyright and Trademark Rights. The Website is owned by its authors ("the Elks Clubs of America") and its suppliers. Its structure, organization, and code are the valuable trade secrets of the Freemasons, probably. The Website is also protected by United States Copyright Law and a group of big, scary goons who will happily beat you until you're ejecting teeth like a winning slot machine. Use of any trademark does not give you any rights of ownership in that trademark, jackass. Except as stated above, this Agreement does not grant you any intellectual property rights in the Website. Got it, fucko? 3. Restrictions. You agree not to modify, adapt, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble or otherwise attempt to discover the inner motivations, dreams, aspirations, or weird, possibly sexual fantasies of the Website. 4. No Warranty. The Website is being delivered to you AS IS and we make no warranty as to its use or performance. WE DO NOT AND CANNOT WARRANT THE PERFORMANCE OR RESULTS YOU MAY OBTAIN BY USING THE WEBSITE. LOOK, WHEN THIS WEBSITE GOES ALL CRAZY AND DESTROYS YOUR COMPUTER, KILLS YOUR PET, SLEEPS WITH YOUR SIGNIFICANT OTHER, DIGS UP ALL YOUR OLD POETRY AND LAUGHS AND LAUGHS, THEN CALLS UP YOUR FRIENDS AND READS THEM ALL THOSE REALLY EMBARRASING PARTS OUT OF YOUR JOURNAL, LIKE WHEN YOU SAID YOU WERE "DESTINED FOR BEAUTY" OR SOME SHIT LIKE THAT, WE MAKE NO GUARANTEES AND WILL SIMPLY JOIN WITH EVERYONE AND LAUGH AT YOUR SORRY ASS, BECAUSE DAMN, THERE'S NO FREAKING WARRANTY HERE. GET IT? NO WARRANTY. NONE. AT ALL. 6. Notice to Government End Users. The Software and Documentation are "Real Bitchin'," as that term is defined at 48 C.F.R. §2.101, consisting of "Real Bitchin' (formerly 'Radical' items)" and as such terms are used in 48 C.F.R. §12.212 or 48 C.F.R. §227.7202, as applicable. Or maybe 56 C.Fsomething something. 7. Oh, and these things, too: §§§§. Consistent with 48 C.F.R. §12.212 or 48 C.F.R. §§227.7202-1 through 227.7202-4, as applicable, as well as §R2-D2 and §JOHNNY 5, locked in a beautiful metallic embrace of everlasting robot love. PLEASE INDICATE YOUR ACCEPTANCE OR DECLINE OF THE FOREGOING AGREEMENT BY CLICKING ON THE APPROPRIATE BUTTON BELOW. I Agree | I do not agree by Jason Torchinsky"

(http://www.illegal-art.org/)


Did anybody else here see this exhibit? Or at least listen to the audio portion?
.....good stuff.
They were giving away the CD's for free, but they're about to run out--you can still get one shipped for 9 bucks, or just download it for free.....



[Edited on January 14, 2006 at 8:31 PM. Reason : plz embed http://www.archive.org/download/illegal-art/rocked.mp3 ]

1/14/2006 8:30:21 PM

Wally Wood
"Disneyland Memorial Orgy"
Poster, 1967

One of the original Mad Magazine illustrators, Wally Wood published this poster in The Realist, an underground newsletter, in 1967. An inside source at Disney told Realist editor Paul Krassner that the company chose not to sue to avoid drawing attention to what could ultimately be a losing battle. However, Disney was not so reluctant when an entrepreneur pirated the drawing and sold it as a black light poster. The blatantly commercial nature of the bootleg--as well as its potential to reach an audience far larger than the Realist--prompted Disney to file a lawsuit, which was ultimately settled out of court.





Ashley Holt
"Notmickey"
Pen, paper, and photocopies, 2002

Holt has created a pad of clipart, a ready-to-cut image of a familiar cartoon character, and a handy pair of scissors--all in one.





Noel Tolentino
Bunnyhop Magazine
Graphic, 1995

When Noel Tolentino finished the first issue of his zine Bunnyhop, he sent a copy to Simpsons creator Matt Groening, along with a gushing fan letter. For the magazine's cover, Tolentino had used Binky from Groening's Life in Hell comic, and he assumed his hero would appreciate the homage. Shortly thereafter, Tolentino and co-publisher Seth Robson received a cease-and-desist letter from Groening's lawyers. Lacking the resources to fight, the Bunnyhop publishers were forced to destroyed the covers on all remaining copies. Although Groening personally apologized to Tolentino for the suit, he later defended his actions in a Mother Jones interview (May 1999), saying, "If I don't vigorously pursue my copyright, then other people can steal it." Groening did not comment on The Simpsons' habit of parodying everything from A Clockwork Orange to The Cosby Show.





Kembrew McLeod
Conceptual, 1998

In 1998, Kembrew McLeod trademarked the phrase "Freedom of Expression" and created a zine with that title. He enlisted a friend, Brendan Love, to pose as the publisher of an imaginary punk rock magazine also called Freedom of Expression, whom he then pretended to sue. McLeod hired a lawyer and didn't let her in on the hoax. The lawyer sent a cease-and-desist letter to Love:
We represent Kembrew McLeod of Sunderland, Massachusetts, the owner of the federally registered trademark, FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION ... Your company has been using the mark Freedom of Expression ... Such use creates a likelihood of confusion in the market and also creates a substantial risk of harm to the reputation and goodwill of our client. This letter, therefore, constitutes formal notice of your infringement of our client’s trademark rights and a demand that you refrain from all further use of Freedom of Expression.
Shortly thereafter, the Daily Hampshire Gazette ran an interview with McLeod. He played it straight, telling the paper, "I didn't go to the trouble, the expense and the time of trademarking Freedom of Expression just to have someone else come along and think they can use it whenever they want." Two years later, when McLeod asked to reprint the Gazette article in his book Owning Culture, the paper denied him permission.





Anonymous
HTML Web page, circa 2000
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/Poosheebla-dvd.html

This DVD logo, formed from the characters in the CSS-auth source, was generated by an anonymous hacker using the MosASCII tool created by Robert DeFusco. To view the entire source code, click "Select All" on your browser's Edit menu.

1/15/2006 10:21:59 AM

im confused

1/15/2006 4:28:24 PM

I don't understand this thread.

1/15/2006 4:39:07 PM

There was an art exhibit called "Illegal Art" a few years ago that is about to start touring again.
It's a mixed media exhibit complete with audio and video portions.
(sponsored by StayFree! Magazine http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/)
IMHO, I thought it was awesome. I don't normally get into art exhibits too much, but this one is all about political and legal issues surrounding art and copyright--and therefore really gets into the question of "what is art?"
i.e. Can an End User License Agreement be a medium for art?

I don't expect that every tduber is intelligent enough to be entertained by the controversy.....let alone understand it. For that matter, most people don't "understand art" anyway....

(I thought about posting this in The SoapBox, but I didn't want a debate. I also considered posting this in Entertainment, but the threads in Entertainment tend to be stupid dribble about main-stream pop-culture crap. This exhibit is not mainstream, therefore, inappropriate for posting in Entertainment. I figured The Lounge would be the best bet....)


I’d still like to know if any other tdubers besides myself saw it.....or have even heard of it.

Quote :

" "Illegal Art: Freedom of Expression in the Corporate Age" The laws governing "intellectual property" have grown so expansive in recent years that artists need legal experts to sort them all out. Borrowing from another artwork--as jazz musicians did in the 1930s and Looney Tunes illustrators did in 1940s--will now land you in court. If the current copyright laws had been in effect back in the day, whole genres such as collage, hiphop, and Pop Art might have never have existed. The irony here couldn't be more stark. Rooted in the U.S. Constitution, copyright was originally intended to facilitate the exchange of ideas but is now being used to stifle it. The Illegal Art Exhibit will celebrate what is rapidly becoming the "degenerate art" of a corporate age: art and ideas on the legal fringes of intellectual property. Some of the pieces in the show have eluded lawyers; others have had to appear in court. Loaded with gray areas, intellectual property law inevitably has a silencing effect, discouraging the creation of new works. Should artists be allowed to use copyrighted materials? Where do the First Amendment and "intellectual property" law collide? What is art's future if the current laws are allowed to stand? Stay Free! considers these questions and others in our multimedia program. "

1/15/2006 10:15:07 PM

I can tell right now that I am out-educated here on the wolfweb... state vs uncc degree? i just got my ass kicked...

nightlife

1/16/2006 1:17:46 AM

Dick Detzner
"The Last Pancake Breakfast"
Giclee print, limited edition, from the original oil painting, 2000


For most of 2001, Detzner's "Corporate Sacrilege" series of paintings generated considerable attention from national and international media. As part of an exhibit at the Chicago Athenaeum Museum, "The Last Pancake Breakfast" sparked much controversy. The museum received hundreds of angry phone calls, as well as a petition started by a local church, asking that the painting be removed. The series was covered by news sources around the globe including CNN, the BBC, Newsweek, The Associated Press, and Reuters. http://www.detzner.com.

1/16/2006 6:24:44 PM

1. It is not that easy to have intellectual property patented or trademarked.
2. Because an artist gets a monopoly on art they have patented or trademarked, it ENCOURAGES artists to create new work in order to patent it and own the monopoly on it.

1/16/2006 7:39:32 PM

^You asked for it. You couldn't be more wrong.

But, before I start, just promise that you will continue to read this thread and answer any questions I have of you. (Assuming you're not just trolling...) If you can do that, I promise that you will change your mind about your statement #2.

Deal?

p.s. I've spent more hours researching and studying this issue than on either of my degrees. You will lose.

1/16/2006 8:47:31 PM

I can assure you I have more knowledge of this subject than you do, unless you are also a U.S. Patent Examiner.

1/16/2006 11:34:21 PM

haha owned

hippy

1/16/2006 11:47:26 PM

damn hippies

1/16/2006 11:54:06 PM

^^^I call bullshit

Quote :

"Class : Senior Major : Textile and Apparel Management"

1/16/2006 11:56:01 PM

Quote :

"2. Because an artist gets a monopoly on art they have patented or trademarked, it ENCOURAGES artists to create new work in order to patent it and own the monopoly on it."

So when these artists use copyrighted materials in their works (without permission), should they be sued and not be allowed to show their work? Should this art exhibit have been raided? (Thankfully it wasn't....)

1/17/2006 11:20:05 AM

^^I think you're right......

susie Q, where are you?

1/17/2006 4:53:10 PM

when you look at it from a strictly art point of view it's easy to agree with ur assertion hemp. unfortunately in the age of businesses, marketing, etc you can't just go around painting whatever you feel like, especially if it is controversial (even slanderous).

1/17/2006 5:07:29 PM

If I had space in my photo gallery, I would post a picture of my Department of Commerce/ United States Patent and Trademark Office security badge for you. I assure you, I am what I say I am.

1/17/2006 5:30:26 PM

^^Well, if the work is commercially motivated, then it's not art, is it?

If one paints something like Wally Wood did (above), but doesn't sell copies, he hasn't done anything illegal or wrong. It's only illegal after someone comes in and tries to make a commercial profit off copies of the work, like when some entrepreneur pirated Wood’s drawing and sold it as a black light poster.

Quite simply, there are no rules in art. Law cannot keep a lid on artistic expression, although it tries. Ever wonder why artists who include photos of nude children among their works are not prosecuted for child porn? Comedians, for instance, are another example of artists that, in the context of their comedic performance (art) can say pretty much whatever they want, but if you or I were to repeat what was said outside of the context of art, we could be charged with libel, slander, or the like. (Don’t confuse art galleries’, comedy clubs’ or theater houses’ commercial activity with commerce of the art--they’re only selling the service of access to the art, not the art itself. When art is sold, it’s privately sold, not commercially sold. Performance art has no mass or dimension, and therefore can’t be sold.)

You can go around painting whatever you feel like, controversial or not--it's called "freedom of expression."

[Edited on January 17, 2006 at 6:00 PM. Reason : ]

1/17/2006 5:55:12 PM

Tom Forsythe
"Food Chain Barbie"
Phototographs, 1999

In 1999, Utah-based artist Forsythe received a complaint from Mattel, which claimed that a series of images he posted on the web infringed on its Barbie copyright and trademark. Although Forsythe was not making money from the works, he decided to fight the case, obtaining legal aid via the ACLU. In August 2001, a federal court ruled on behalf of Forsythe; Mattel immediately announced plans to appeal, with a decision expected sometime after May 2003.

--update--
Good news! Tom Forsythe, has won a major victory in his case against Mattel. Mattel, you may recall, sued Forsythe over his Food Chain Barbie photographs; Forsythe won in federal discourt court, then again in circuit court. Now the district court has gone the extra mile. Calling Mattel's case "objectively unreasonable" and "frivolous," the court has ruled that Mattel must pay Forsythe's team over $1.8 million to cover legal fees and court costs!

[Edited on January 17, 2006 at 5:58 PM. Reason : ]

1/17/2006 5:57:53 PM

i mean i dont see an issue with them just putting it up on the web (or simply creating it) or something, but if they are going to be making money on it they're going to have to face the consequences.

as far as what i was saying about being slanderous, i mean things that are pretty over the top. someone posting pictures of the trix rabbit ejaculating on someones face is probably a bit different than just having a barbie in a martini glass.

1/17/2006 6:23:56 PM

^Exactly, copyright is only a concern where commercial money is made.
It should be noted, however, that the art may be sold privately, because this is only the changing of ownership of one original work, not copies, and therefore doesn't constitute commerce.

Quote :

"over the top"

I see what you're saying. That's actually quite near the center of the controversy. Obscenity and indecency laws kick in, and artists get in legal trouble. I personally think that it's silly for the government to ban what some would consider obscene--I mean, we're all adults here....if you don't like it, simply don't look at it! These laws are a bitch, though. You'd think that after Lenny Bruce, Richard Pryor, George Carlin and Bill Hicks paved the way, we'd be able to get rid of indecency and obscenity laws altogether..….



---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote :

"You can go around painting whatever you feel like, controversial or not--it's called freedom of expression."

I know, I quoted myself....so what?



NCSU Tunnel Legal Notice:
The author of this work hereby waives all claim of copyright (economic and moral) in this work and immediately places it in the public domain; it may be used, distorted or destroyed in any manner whatsoever without further attribution or notice to the creator.

1/17/2006 8:07:59 PM

Hey susie Q

You didn't answer my question:

So when these artists [featured in this exhibit] use copyrighted materials in their works (without permission), should they be sued and not be allowed to show their work? Should this art exhibit have been raided?

1/18/2006 9:27:10 AM

so they can display this art of theirs that uses other peoples creations

show it at an art show

which is advertisment for their art

and then sell other pieces of their art that dont include other peoples work.

So they are profitting in a round about way, just not directly.

seems sketchy to me, even if it is 'legal'

1/18/2006 9:51:45 AM

Michael Hernandez de Luna
"Prozac," "Viagra"
Computer Laser Print/U.S. Postage Cancellation, 1996-9

The artist's pieces violate a number of laws. In addition to reproducing trademarked designs for Viagra and Prozac, de Luna has sent his artist stamps through the mail as postage. The cancelled letters are a testament to his skill in fooling postal workers. Many other works are featured in The Stamp Art and Postal History of Michael Thompson and Michael Hernandez de Luna.

1/18/2006 2:51:29 PM

Quote :

"show it at an art show which is advertisment for their art and then sell other pieces of their art that dont include other peoples work. So they are profitting in a round about way, just not directly."

Not exactly. When you show art at an art show, you are simply showing it. It is not advertisement for sales, but instead advertisement of ideas, of expression. There are no price tags because the items aren't for sale--they're only on exhibit. If you've been to an art exhibit before, it's easy to see that there is no commercial motivation whatsoever. Sure, the museum may sell magnets and T-shirts in their gift store (if they even have one,) but that is not the selling of the actual art--also, it's not the actual artist doing the selling.

What you may be confusing is the difference between commercial public sales, and private non-commercial sales. If an artist decides to sell their work, they may. They may sell it to a private collector, or they may sell it to a museum, or in some cases, to a government. Only when someone sells copies of the work on a large commercial scale would copyright issues arise. However, there obviously exists some "gray area", which is where the debate is currently taking place. (Some feel that no one should own art, not even the artist--that it is owned by everyone....)

Your point about viewing the exhibit of works that use others' copyrighted materials as "advertisement" to attract sales of copies of their other works that are not using others' copyrighted materials is interesting. Frankly, there doesn't seem to be much wrong with it because the creation of the art is not commercially motivated. Or is it? That's near the center of the debate as well. If you ask me, artists that create works with the intent to profit off commercial sales of copies of the works, aren't real artists. (See Backstreet Boys.) A real artist is only creating a work for the purpose of expression. Period. In that context, it seems proper that an artist should be able to create whatever they want, despite whether or not it contains others' copyrighted materials without permission.

Context determines whether something is real "art" or not. IOW, without knowing why an individual created something, it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether the creation is considered art, or simply a product. The controversy is clearly evident. Theoretically, two individuals who know not of each other or each others work, could simultaneously create (by amazing coincidence,) the same graphic. One is a "real artist", who created the graphic to express feelings surrounding his/her mother's death or something, whereas the other is a paid graphic designer, who created the graphic in the hopes that it's appeal could assist in the sale of perfume or something. The pieces are exactly the same, (or close enough,) but only one is "art".

The debate surrounding this is only intensified as copyright issues come into play, especially when the copyright holders have deep pockets, or are widely known. Indeed, the last chapter of this issue has yet to be written.

Myself? I tend to side with the artists. Why? Because if you side with the copyright holders, then copyright law would clearly not be doing it's supposed job of encouraging creativity, but instead, silencing it--censoring it. I don't think anyone has the right to say how an artist (a "real" artist,) may express themselves, as long as no physical harm comes of it....

This controversy is what is referred to in the often asked question:

What is art?





------------------------------------------------------------------------









Heidi Cody
"American Alphabet"
Installation, 2000

Brooklyn-based artist Heidi Cody frequently uses consumer products, packaging, and logos in her work. The letters shown here are part of "American Alphabet," all 26 letters of which she took from corporate logos. So far Cody has not had any legal troubles. Ad agencies have even purchased parts of the Alphabet.



[Edited on January 19, 2006 at 1:33 PM. Reason : ]

1/19/2006 1:28:43 PM

ahaha i can spot like 2/3 of those letters

1/20/2006 3:28:44 AM

I recognize 18 out of the 26 letters.



[Edited on January 20, 2006 at 5:40 PM. Reason : everytime i look at it, I see more]

1/20/2006 5:36:24 PM

i may be wrong but i think they are:
a- all
b- bubbalicious
c - cambell's
d - dawn
e - eggos
f - fritos
g - gatorade
h - ???
i - ice
j - jello?
k - koolaid?
l - lysol
m - m&ms
n - nabisco?
o - oreo
p - pez
q - qtips
r - reeses
s - starburst
t - ???
u - uncle ben's
v - v8
w - wisk laundry detergent?
x - ???
y - york
z - zest

[Edited on January 20, 2006 at 5:47 PM. Reason : 8]

1/20/2006 5:47:23 PM

i - icee
n - nilla wafers

1/20/2006 6:12:22 PM

t- tide
h - hebrew national deli mustard

1/20/2006 9:58:01 PM

Diana Thorneycroft
"Mouse," "Boy," "Dog," "Man," "White Mouse," "Man with Large Nose"
Graphite on paper, 2001-2

These drawings were scheduled to appear in Foul Play, an exhibition by Thorneycroft and Michael Boss to be held in Winnipeg, Manitoba. But when Thorneycroft and Boss were in discussions with Gallery 1C03, a lawyer advised the gallery that it would be liable for copyright infringement. (In Canada, copyright law is even more restrictive than it is in the United States. "Fair play," which is the Canadian equivalent of "fair use," doesn't allow for parody.)

According to Thorneycroft, the works from Foul Play reflect the hypocritical way that society ignores the violence that is often at the heart of child's play. She and Boss ultimately exhibited Foul Play at Winnipeg's SITE gallery. But for fear of legal problems, Thorneycroft removed these drawings of well-known cartoon characters from the show.

1/21/2006 6:10:43 PM

Eric Doeringer
"CD - 2002"
Mixed media, 2002

Doeringer has duplicated every CD in his personal collection--302 in all--and repackaged them in hand-printed, numbered editions. Each CD label bears Doeringer's signature, but doesn't provide any information about the style of music on the disc or about the artist or recording company. For more examples of Doeringer's work, see EricDoeringer.com.

1/30/2006 10:15:20 AM