3rd and long – Must convert

Our last meeting was exceptionally interesting. Afterwards, I suggested to my wife that all artists should be required to take some coursework on IP and copyright law. The debate definitely creates a sense of responsibility for users of information, which could lead to fewer violations of copyright protection. It was great to have a third-party come and discuss the issues and ideas around copyright. Also I found the documents and checklist most useful.
Since our last meeting, I have thought mostly about the Found Art assignment that was due during this class period. It seems to connect with me directly as contemporary artists. The point that I can’t seem to drop is outside of this context and/or perhaps outside of the digital format I would not have considered many of these uses offensive in regards to copyright. However in this context, with this type of examination, I felt like we were all somewhat susceptible to litigation for breaking copyright law. I feel that Bridget’s Duchampian piece is a good example. She used an image that is recognizable, which likely means that she has used “ the heart” of the piece and generated something new with it. But of course she would used the heart of it, as an artist, she would be looking to communicate something intriguing, provoking. Why else would an artist sample someone else’s image? With that said the image is significantly different from an aesthetic perspective. The image was cropped, zoomed in, moved to the right and placed in front of a new environment. For all I know she is making fun of the space behind the Mona Lisa as some sort of parody. Which could bring to mind, what is parody really? Does that mean it’s funny? If a judge didn’t find something I made in parody funny could he convict me? I seem to have more questions then answers still.
Lastly I liked the Creative Commons information. I shared it with several people over the weekend that use videos and music for their art. It really coincidences well with the open source movement.