« Jukebox Joints | Main | The Cookies Are At It Again »

03 December 2007


Charles Frith

Great post Charlie. I've been thinking about the implications for all this and my conclusions are somewhat Marxist revolutionary. Maybe I'm wrong though. I often am.


Nicely put.

Great TED talk from Lawrence Lessig on this very subject:


I have to agree on the Obey stuff, never been a fan of it and it's ilk.

Charlie Gower

Yeah that TED talk is rally good...like so many others... I feel so weak compared to those guys perhaps rightly so...


i think the development of creative commons has been the beginning of addressing some of the phenomenon of 'image availability' whereby if you're not precious about your image/copy rights, you can make it available. it's making major inroads into how people actually feel about work.

the difficult bit is for the small section of the community for whom their imagery is their livelihood

according to arts lawyers in australia, the main hinderance (sp?) to justice is actually the justice system. taking action against someone who is infringing on your copyrights and moral rights is an expensive and lengthy process, which is out of reach for most artists (hence big ad agencies with very good legal departments being able to get away with it so easily).

interestingly, being in the 'public domain' doesn't automatically negate copy rights (well not here anyway and our model is based on your model) - sanctioned public art, commissioned by the public funds is not covered by copyright because it is technically owned by the people (although that's still up for question) and is able to be photographed, used in other works and published (although not vandalised or misrepresented).

fortunately or unfortunately for rat le blek and banksy et al is that the fact that most of their work contravenes other laws (vandalism and trespassing, etc) negating their inherent moral, copy and IP rights. and i guess in bansky's case, litigation means identification.

The comments to this entry are closed.