Re: [-empyre-] Re: copyright

["Melinda Rackham" <melinda@unsw.edu.au>]

> being an artist who's dealt with said institutions, i can't say that
> i've been robbed blind. though i have not been paid a red cent for
> showing at the whitney twice now, the whitney exhibitions have directly
> led to engagements that i have been paid for, and in some cases fairly
> well paid.

im sure no one would want to take away the right for an individual to forgo
payment if you think other benifits outweigh it. :) a lot of my art practice
has happened for free, and ive also been lucky to have  been well paid for
some of it, and gotten  grant and prize money from governments, instutions,
festivals,  coorporations, etc

however, what i do object to is when other people are charging entry fees,
course fees,  purchase costs etc for my content which they got from me for
free (because they couldnt affort a small reproduction fee), or take my work
and use it for another purpose for which they get paid , without getting my
permission or acknowledgeing me ,  that i take offence. im happy to have
everything available upfront for free if the rest of the world plays by the
same rules with this work, but when its consumed by another system with
different rules im not happy to get ripped off because i happen to work on
the net.

 i dont think its an either /or situation.. i think two systems can happily
co exist..eg a few years ago thinking about this whole copy rite issue ago i
made one of my net.art works available for sale in a numbered limited
edition with an authenticity certificate, and a screen customised to the
purchaser's name from a commercail net.art site in germany..
http://www.artcart.de  , and the exact same work is availabe as copyleft, ..
without the certificate or the customised screen - available for free
download from an art hotline server in adelaide run by FTR- any one can
download the wholes site as an archive and do anything to it. you can have
either on your computer, the route by which you get them is up to you , and
which system you support, and which artwork you value more..the one you got
for fre e, or the one you paid for which is authentically yours and signed -
after all its uniqueness and exclusivity that society seems to value over
shared experience.

> as far as copyright, i'm very loose on the topic. i find the stack of
> paperwork involved when i agree to show a work rather silly, i barely
> bother to read it and sign without a care for the fine print. when

i find that scary  - eg siggraph almost seems to want to you to sign you
life away ..
also even GNU General Public License has copyrite clauses

> as far as my "estate" i could not care less, i'll be dead and i do not
> intend to have heirs, at least none that i know of, yuk yuk.

yeah me neither.., thats why i want it now!!!

also ive had lots of mail off-list from artists responding to my earlier
post, but not wanting to do so publicly on the list.  Im wondering is
net.art such a small and fledgling arena still that we are uncomfortable
looking into, or exposing our own practices, cause as daniel points out its
a systematic problem , affecting writers and curators as well.

melinda