Before the internet copyright law mostly concerned businesses and professionals. The law was never designed or intended for the general population. It was supposed to keep businesses from stealing from each other.
Now copyright is everyone's concern, because everyone can copy just by typing CTRL-C and everyone can publish just by clicking "Upload". The current law is completely inadequate for the world we live in.
Then just donate the money directly. There's a big donate button on their homepage.
Good thing for artists there's a lot of rich morons in the world, then. Of course, I wish I had bought Rothko's or Duchamps' works back when they were cheap.
So you're not one of those people paying $90K for it.
No, you devalue his work by selling the same thing for $200,000. Good luck getting someone to pay that though, esp. since it's already been done.
the thing is, people would still buy Prince's work over yours, because it's his work. He's the one adding value to the image, not the image itself, or who created the image.
The only way to beat him is to sell yours for more than he's selling his.
Whether the artist can create something that you would deem "artistic merit" is absolutely and completely irrelevant.
Luckily the police only had to walk from the dining area to the kitchen. They found the suspicious evidence quite delicious.
I agree that this article is rather hysterical, esp. considering the last paragraph of the article:
Three people were killed and more than 260 others wounded in April 2013 when two pressure-cooker bombs were set off near the finish line of the Boston Marathon.
If anyone pays Suicide Girls (EFF) $90 for that image, it'll be because of the value added to it by Richard Prince - not the value added to it by Suicide Girls. So he ultimately did them a favor by appropriating their work and they're capitalizing on that rather than suing.
Even more new works might be created if everything were in the public domain and litigation free.
I don't see how a trademark here is encouraging anything here, and I'm ignoring the fact that the purpose of trademark is not to encourage the creation of new work but to protect consumers from brand confusion.
The estate has simply gotten used to big movie studios paying up to use Sherlock Holmes, and the studios don't question it because paying up for rights is simply how they do business. They can't imagine a world where everyone isn't paying up for the rights to everything ever created, which is why they can't fathom the internet.
Thanks for reminding me how awful that movie was.
Nicolas Chartier isn't talent. Nicolas Chartier hires talent.
But that's how it works. They let you know when your term is over they'll have a cushy job waiting. After that, they'll do whatever they need to do to please you and keep that opportunity open. You might even do the same if your job was always hanging on the next election.
If he doesn't get reelected, I'm sure he's got a job waiting at the MPAA. A politician's got to have a backup plan.
We have to use the National Guard for something, after all.
Hollywood, radio, and television were largely in control of the nation's entertainment for more than 100 years before the internet, and that kind of control is not easily let go (not to mention the deep deep pockets of cash that it generated).
They are using their money and influence to stop something that gives everyone the same powers they have enjoyed for a century. The real problem is they didn't grab control of the internet from the start (and they could have through regulations) because the internet was thought of as a communications platform, not an entertainment platform.
It's because Google makes so much more money than they do, and because they think Google is the internet (or that the internet is only used to watch their movies or listen to music). They either want the government to force Google to share its income with them, and/or they want to be able to dictate search results in their favor.
It's not about hate. They simply want money and control.
Hollywood couldn't have written a better speech.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Some of us get it.