Re: Copyright Question

Now that's totally exaggerating things. There *is* a line in intellectual property law, and it wasn't dreamed up by a bunch of idiots who just wanted to make life difficult for everyone. The goal is to protect the work of people for a limited period of time. That includes the work not only of artists and architects and such, but also the work of photographers and translators and so forth. Nowhere did anyone say that Michaelangelo should be reimbursed. *His* work is out of copyright. However, the photographer who photographed one of his pieces deserves protection for his or her *current* work. The publisher deserves protection for the work that went into creating the book about the artist. You're perfectly free to go take your own picture of Michelangelo's works. You just can't poach someone else's photo. There may be many people who don't understand where the line is when it comes to intellectual property rights. That doesn't mean there *isn't* a line. And if one doesn't understand where the line is, one what basis does one declare it unreasonable?

Best wishes, Ericka

Yeh Karen!!

Like in don't COPY and you are RIGHT!!!!

Fred

't backstitch to emailjust stitchit. If you are on thin ice you might as well dance!

W.I.P. - "Fiddler > >

The judge;

"Mrs. Bartel we have two witnesses who saw you photocopy that chart."

- Your honour! "For my defense I can bring to you a hundred witnesses who did not see it."

Fred

't backstitch to emailjust stitchit. If you are on thin ice you might as well dance!

W.I.P. - "Fiddler on the Roof", "Oriental Maiden".

This is why I found the study of art history and the study of philosophy such a good mix. There is indeed a spirit of the time in particular times and places that stamps itself on all kinds of human endeavors. The view that people have of life, of the nature of things, their state of belief or disbelief in certain ideas, extend over into the art they make--and lots of other things as well. For me, one of the most interesting studies was Russian just after the revolution, when artists tried to articulate what "revolutionary" looks like in everything from workers' clothing to tea room design. The Arts and Crafts Movement was similarly grounded in strong ideas. When artists are grappling with similar problems, you can expect certain images, forms, colours etc to lend themselves to that, and to form a common thread through works of the time. And anyway, people are always influenced by what they see around them, including the works of others, something that art history readily acknowledges. Dawne

Actually, that wasn't necessarily clear to me.

Sure, it's unfortunate that some people can get away with breaking the law because it's too costly to enforce it for many. That doesn't change the fundamental issue about whether something is right or wrong, or legal or illegal. There are many things that are unenforceable in practical terms.

Best wishes, Ericka

Sure, and there are certainly people who try to make the case that their ideas were stolen when, in fact, they weren't. On the other hand, there are also plenty of times when work/ideas

*were* stolen. That's why we have a judicial system to sort things out ;-) No doubt it's imperfect, but then again, so are all human endeavors. At least in my mind, it beats just declaring a free for all.

Best wishes, Ericka

Absolutely. Especially in a commercial marketplace, people will try to grab on to things that look like they will sell. Look at the current Da Vinci Code lawsuit. When we look at art history, we see the greats, and not the dozens of cut-rate ateliers that churned out whatever was in style ( Madonnas--let's do madonnas. Oughta really sell for Christmas. What's that guy Raphael doing this year?) I am glad we have courts to wrestle with the problems--they are imperfect, but way better than say, throwing things.. And there are people who will do the right thing, whether or not anyone could sue them for it, just because it is the right thing. Dawne

Libraries fall under special rules as regards to copyright. With journals and Interlibrary Loan, the ILL office must keep track of how many times they've copied an article out of a journal and pay copyright fees. With books it's understood that they will be read by many readers. The royalties are paid when the book is purchased. Once purchased, a book can be sold, given, burned, whatever. Just not copied in its entirety.

True.

Joan, academic librarian

What about the XS/other pattern books/magazines that are in the library? If I see a pattern in one I want to do, am I supposed to go out and buy a copy?

You're supposed to stitch fast and keep renewing the book till you're done.

Well, it seems that Alida Industries no longer exists, at least not as far as the internet or telephone directory goes. So now what does one do? I do not know this Tom Browning, who I believe was an artist. Helen

Helen Bartel to send a message remove .spam from the email address

Dawne , many artists i know get upset when they see that at about the same time they make an art object or exhibit a certain subject ,it appears elsewhereas you say , being philosophical about it helps , i think it prooves that my work was made in `the right time`. for me that is where my extensive reading and research in several languages comes in handy and useful. having my own artistic work , being involved with other artists either by curationd or proofreading catalogs and sometimes their own books, gives me a wonderful more ballanced feeling about such matters .

Have you ever read some books about the revolutianry group that sat in Zurich Basel [ Switerland ] before the revolution ? Dad etc,,,,

You are right that they tried to make it all revolutionary , but you also have to reemmber they worked with the Fewer materials they had and were NOT allowed to say everything they wanted in their art , thus if you are interested in the fact of them trying to make art revolutionary etc,, you might also consider that they spend a lot of energy in hiding many true feelings. I happened to know a few of those Old Revolutioanry artists as well as some of the Spiritual siblings , i found their `enlistment into tyhe Idealogical revolutionary Art interesting but also quite pathetic ,,, esp those who went on doing years later ... >The Arts and Crafts Movement was similarly grounded in strong

Some artits don`t see other`s work and still make somrthing in same spirit . I am quite busy with reading the chapters that `art history` has ignored for many years or that art historions deliberately put aside ,

from Female art to `minorities art . mirjam

Ericka i am sorry it wasn`t clear to you , i am so much involved in various activities around art , as well as researching historical docs as well as being an Ex librarian ....And around me there are a lot of writers , researchers and translators in several fields [ and several countries] , that i hear a lot about these matters , not only as a rhetorical question. [ i also read a lot of `urban legends ` about it]

Alas and unfortunately people do break laws weather real ones or moral ones. And since i live on earth and happen to be very realistic , and quite some of the issues spoken about here happen every day , every where , i am not as surev as you that indeed all people think that

Alas this issue differs from place to place , from culture to culture, from one level of society to another level of society . you end your words with

thus in practicality ,, right /wrong liggal /illigal aren` t fundamental nore equal to all ,,, thank you for a very interesting discussion . mirjam

Helen, you could begin another thread with the chart's title in subject line. Someone here may have it but automatically ignore any threads on copyright.

Also, Just Cross Stitch magazine has a page in every issue of folks looking for OOP charts. I have no idea what their lead time is.

HTH

Nancy Sue, Professi> Well, it seems that Alida Industries no longer exists, at least not as

Mirjam Bruck-Cohen wrote:

I didn't say any of it was universal. I said that whether or not people can get away with breaking the law has nothing to do with the legality/illegality or right/wrong of it. If action X is illegal (meaning illegal by the laws that apply to the time and place of the action), then it's illegal whether or not it is easy (or even possible) to enforce it. Some may say that illegal-but-unenforceable is the same as legal, but I think there's a difference. Similarly, the enforceability of any laws regarding Action X do not affect whether or not Action X is "right" or "wrong" by any individual's assessment of right or wrong (except in the single case where a person's definition of right and wrong actually depends on the enforceability of the law). If it's wrong, it's wrong whether or not any law against it is enforceable. People may disagree on what is right or wrong, but the enforceability of the law regarding the action is unlikely to be a significant factor in the assessment of whether it's right or wrong. If it's wrong to steal someone's intellectual property, then it's wrong even if laws against it are unenforceable for most people. There are those who argue that there should be no legal protection for intellectual property, but their belief that it is right to appropriate others' intellectual property also does not hinge on the enforceability of copyright laws (for the most part--I'm sure there's someone out there whose position is that he'd be for copyright law if only it were possible to enforce it better). If it's illegal to steal someone's intellectual property, then it's illegal whether or not the law against it is unenforceable. So, it's a shame that the law does not, in a practical sense, provide equal protection for all. That's hardly just. Nevertheless, the inequality isn't, in my mind, a very good (or morally just) argument for ignoring copyright laws, regardless of how cynical it makes one. Whatever your feelings on the matter (which remain, I confess, somewhat unclear to me), there are certainly people who have expressed similar sentiments in this or similar threads.

Best wishes, Ericka

Ericka i never said nore imnplied that i am for using or taking or stealing "intelectual property" , i specificly wrote that i always instruct[ed] pupils artists and anyone that even when they `only` quote somebody , they should state the source.... And i know for fact that by this ibnstruction[s] i have educated many a person, to be more aware of it. I also conclude that , probably to your luck, you live in a place where all laws are Chrystall clear, all relate and were made in One set of Rules laws and traditions. And as you describe it it is clear to All and refferes to all parts of your society, and takes care and into considerations the needs and wants and beliefs of all levels of society.... Alas in other parts of the world, societies aren`t so Uniform , in beliefs, in needs in many ways. A great part of world`s population , have, have more than one Unique codex of laws. You have the state`s codex and you have the religious or idealogical codex , and you have a traditional codex .... And for most people many parts of life and behaviours have to be a ballancing of several of those `codexes`...

It might be that in some cultures , stealing from one own`s people is unlawfull , but stelaing from another Group is allowed and at certain times or places , even encouraged. Same about killing, and any other Human action towrds another human. It isn`t ideal, but in reality right /wrong legal/illigal are quite relative. And when the Richer amongst us can get more Legal help than the less richer, it makes this ideas even more relative. This relativeness or Double standards are what affects our lives, everyday everywhere . That is my point, This doesn`t change my basic belief that there are some Right and Wrong behaviours. And that we should all strive to have a Wonderful codex of laws, And should all educate our children to do `right` and `wrong`. I believe that we all can agree only a very few `right and wrongs` but that there are a few which are Survival Laws. Road safety rules are a wonderful example to this ., Proudhon had some good ideas, The ten commandments are good. But as you know the CULTURE WAR is happening Now... and one must think about it when ones carries the FLAG of right / wrong legal/illigal ... which are ever so relative, deppending on which society you were born in and where you live. The qustion you must ask isn`t if people break laws ? but if they think they break it and Which law they break the State`s law the religious law ???which codex is dominating that person in regard to This part of his life .... a complicated question. But this is THE QUESTION of our times!!!! mirjam

"Mirjam Bruck-Cohen" wrote

Actually did a presentation about them in German in a German culture class, including a recitation of one of the Dada poems. Fascinating

There was a brief (very brief) time when considerable freedom was given and taken ( with artists like Tatlin and Lebedev and many others). It didn't last long and the Soviet Realist stuff with happy farmers and smiley soldiers took over. Dawne

Thank you this was facinating ... one of the Dadaists moved Israel Marcel Yanko , he lived in EIN HOD an artist`s village , and trhere is a museum with his legacy. Yes Tatlin and Lebedev ,,, I knew an Ex Curtaor of the Leningrad [ now Petersburg] Museum who told me lots about them ... Thank you for the lovely letters . mirjam

Mirjam Bruck-Cohen wrote:

Not necessarily. It's not perfect, but it is clearly documented, so there's not much to argue with except around the edges in terms of interpretation.

Everyone has that. We are all accountable to multiple systems that lay claim to our behavior and we all have to balance that.

Sure. Lots of folks don't believe in intellectual property, as I said previously. However, if a country is a signatory to the relevant international treaties, then specific forms of intellectual property rights apply. Violating those is illegal. That ain't rocket science. Those with competing values from whatever other system of justice or morality they might like to apply may choose to disregard the laws, but that doesn't change the fact that the action is illegal with respect to international intellectual property laws. You can slice it and dice it however you like, but if a law exists, it's the law, barring whatever wiggle room is available for interpretation. If there's no law, there's no law to break, obviously. If there are cultural forces that encourage unlawful behavior, then there's likely to be more lawbreaking, but it's still, by definition, illegal. At any rate, my initial argument had nothing to do with the existence of competing values. I simply observed that A) many people complain about how awful intellectual property laws are but demonstrably do not understand precisely what they are (and therefore, in my opinion, don't have much of a leg to stand on when it comes to complaining) and B) the fact that a particular law is difficult to enforce (note that this applies to cases where said law exists) does not mean that it's okay to violate the law. One may have *other* reasons for arguing that it's okay to violate a law, but I don't see how a law that is otherwise appropriate becomes something that can be flouted at will just because it is challenging to enforce. If stealing is illegal, that doesn't mean that it's okay to steal those things that are probably too small to be worth enforcement. You can make all sorts of other arguments for when stealing might be justified, but the simple fact of a particular act of theft being practically unenforceable isn't a particularly good one in my book.

Best wishes, Ericka