This is an email exchange. I have permission as noted to share.
From Eugenia Loli-Queru
finally found your email address at your Lighting site.
replies. Twitter is simply a BAD tool to communicate. At 140 chars you
have to do compromises, and since English is not my first language,
it's easy for me to do a mistake and change a meaning without meaning
to! >>>>> I believe that we should have more relaxed fair use laws. I believe
that individuals should be able to re-use portions of existing
copyrighted material, in order to realize their artistic vision -- as
long as these remixes are not used for commercial purposes. To me,
this is the epitome of how culture should spread. Re-inventing the
wheel as an artist, is halting culture, and it's making art more
expensive. Nothing good can come from that! Our main disagreement seems to be on the fact that I believe that fair
use laws should be relaxed and descriptive-enough so people can re-use
parts of existing works without permission, while you believe that
they should at least ask first. The problem with asking is that not
everyone replies -- even if these artists don't mind people re-using
and remixing their work! In fact, most artists don't reply! And this
is terrible for culture. The other problem with this is that when
artists die, there's no one to ask! I know this all to well in the
book industry, where institutions want to *save* some old books by
digitizing them, and yet, they're still under copyright, but there's
absolutely no one to ask for permission! The same goes about film!
We're losing 20th Century culture, not because we can't buy or license
these works if necessary, but because we can't even ask for
permission! So if some artists lose a tiny bit of control, by not having remixers
asking them for permission all the time, but at the same time this
could make culture flourish, then losing some control is a good thing. <<<<< This is my reply, and this is the one that should be used for your
article. As I explained, Twitter is simply not the right tool to get
ideas across. Neither on my side, or yours. I mean, if you're going to
WRITE a full article, at least give us the ability to get quoted via a
medium that it's not limited to 140 characters and getting misquoted
by placing the replies at the wrong paragraph of your replies (making
us look like fools)! thanks,
Thanks for this.
Still disagree. Personally, I usually allow them to do so. But I like having my option as the creator. You are implying that my wishes do not count.For instance... say I am a deeply committed somethingorother and you make a mix with my images that totally run against my core belief. Is it wrong for me to not want that to happen? Is the fact that I have a deeply held belief not worthy of involvement. Asking would have mitigated that problem instantly.
While you may believe that with all your heart doesn't make it true. "Halting culture"? Really? Not being able to mix a 'groove' by Kanye is halting culture? Not having the ability to grab a Beatles song for the background of a 'engagement shoot' is halting culture? Really?Not having to listen to Kanye is a possible 'good' coming from that - but I digress..
Two things. Tough. And a non-reply IS a reply.I do a ton of direct mail for my studio and my clients. I do not have the right to challenge someone who doesn't respond to my direct mail, do I? (I wish I could... heh... "Dude - I sent you a mailer that cost me $19 bucks and you didn't get back to me... loser creep. I'll never ask you for an annual report gig again... you'll see."
Yes. That sometimes happens.
No. It is not now, nor will it ever be, a good thing.I wish I could go back to the 70's and make that purchase of "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico" - Adams for $200. I was there, and I coulda - but I didn't. So that moment is lost. I would love to hear Chopin play his 'Etudes' - I really would. Nope... not happening. Nor will I ever see Alvin Ailey dance in a performance, or Coltrane play "A Love Supreme", or watch Bird and Dizzy trading 8's - all lost. All I would give nearly anything to see. It is what it is. It is the ethereal, fleeting nature of art. It is a magical, mystical endeavor. It comes at great expense, and I am not talking about money. And it belongs to the artist. And it belongs to the shifting sands of time. Thanks for the email.Hope this finds you well.
Reply From Eugenia Loli-Queru:
I guess our more fundamental disagreement is that you believe that art
belongs to the artist, while I believe that it belongs to the whole of
humanity. Especially after 25 years since its release (I'm willing to
give artists a grace of 25 years to make money by other professionals,
but after that time, old works should belong to the world). The
original copyright limit was 25 years, and I think that this was a
And there it is. The work should belong to anyone who wants it. The author is "willing" to give the creator 25 years, then all bets are off.
Sad... truly sad that people think so little of the creative process.