Runboard.com
You're welcome.

runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)


Page:  1  2  3 

 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 2462
Karma: 19 (+21/-2)
Reply | Quote
Re: Graffiti


quote:

mais oui wrote:

the Graffiti artist 'Banksy's work sells for £hundreds of thousands

•KEEP IT SPOTLESS (£[sign in to see URL]) ...
•SUBMERGED PHONE BOOTH (£722,500) ...
•SIMPLE INTELLIGENCE TESTING (£636,500) ...
•HAPPY SHOPPER (£506,500) ...
•GIRL WITH RED BALLOON (£500,000) ...
•REMBRANDT (£398,500) ...
•THINK TANK (£397,000) ...
•VANDALISED PHONE BOX (£361,900)



Whether something sells for lots of money does not determine its artistic merit or status. It just means that someone, sometimes an investor, was willing to pay big money for it.

quote:

If I record a piece of music onto a blank CD who owns the music?



Depends on who created the music in the first place. If it's an original composition of yours you do.

2/13/2018, 10:33 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
mais oui Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 4137
Karma: 13 (+19/-6)
Reply | Quote
Re: Graffiti


quote:

From a legal standpoint there was no owner of the alleged art. The owner of the building only owned the building, not the art. And the artists did not own it either because they used someone else's property to display it. There was no ownership of that particular art therefore the judge's ruling was in error. No owner could have violated the Visual Rights Act because in this case there wasn't one.



under what law or set of laws does the artist not own the art?

I dont follow your reasoning and cannot find the law that you are obliquely referring to .


---
HAPPINESS, THE IGNOBLE LIFE GOAL OF THE ILLITERATE
2/13/2018, 11:11 pm Link to this post PM mais oui Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 2462
Karma: 19 (+21/-2)
Reply | Quote
Re: Graffiti


quote:

From a legal standpoint there was no owner of the alleged art. The owner of the building only owned the building, not the art. And the artists did not own it either because they used someone else's property to display it. There was no ownership of that particular art therefore the judge's ruling was in error. No owner could have violated the Visual Rights Act because in this case there wasn't one.




quote:

under what law or set of laws does the artist not own the art?-mais



Under what set of laws would they own the art? If I sculpted a statue of Zeus out of some object on your property such as a lamp post or a tree that you owned would I then own that statue of Zeus? Being the creator is not necessarily the same thing as being the owner of a piece of art and doesn't automatically endow the artist with any special rights.

quote:

I dont follow your reasoning and cannot find the law that you are obliquely referring to.



I'm not referring to any law.


Last edited by Philer, 2/13/2018, 11:52 pm
2/13/2018, 11:50 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
mais oui Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 4137
Karma: 13 (+19/-6)
Reply | Quote
Re: Graffiti


quote:

I'm not referring to any law.




"From a legal standpoint there was no owner of the alleged art. "

so from where does this 'legal stand point' derive?


quote:

If I sculpted a statue of Zeus out of some object on your property such as a lamp post or a tree that you owned would I then own that statue of Zeus?



you would own the art but not the medium.

We are back to my using a blank CD that I own to illegally copy music made by some one else - I own the CD but they still own the music

---
HAPPINESS, THE IGNOBLE LIFE GOAL OF THE ILLITERATE
2/14/2018, 12:20 am Link to this post PM mais oui Blog
 
cooter50 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 3948
Karma: 2 (+14/-12)
Reply | Quote
Re: Graffiti


Your pretext falls under copyright infringement. To knowingly reproduce another's art/music/video without permission is against at least US copyright law.
2/14/2018, 1:35 pm Link to this post PM cooter50 Blog
 
mais oui Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 4137
Karma: 13 (+19/-6)
Reply | Quote
Re: Graffiti


I dont care which law it falls under the essence is the same - you own the medium but not the art

---
HAPPINESS, THE IGNOBLE LIFE GOAL OF THE ILLITERATE
2/14/2018, 3:43 pm Link to this post PM mais oui Blog
 
Yobbo Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 2325
Karma: 15 (+23/-8)
Reply | Quote
Re: Graffiti


Is graffiti legal?
No matter how "artistic" it is defiling a building.
2/14/2018, 5:46 pm Link to this post PM Yobbo
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 2462
Karma: 19 (+21/-2)
Reply | Quote
Re: Graffiti


quote:

so from where does this 'legal stand point' derive?-mais



What legal standing exists for ownership? If someone uses something that belongs to someone else to generate their "art" what law states that the result is owned by the artist?

quote:

you would own the art but not the medium.



Since they are combined together how is that legally possible?

quote:

We are back to my using a blank CD that I own to illegally copy music made by some one else - I own the CD but they still own the music



Yes, but that is a very different situation from the artist taking your CD without your permission and using it to record their music. Your ownership of that CD does not go away merely because someone put something on it.
2/14/2018, 6:43 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
mais oui Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 4137
Karma: 13 (+19/-6)
Reply | Quote
Re: Graffiti


Since they are combined together how is that legally possible?


Hey! I dont write the laws!!


quote:

that is a very different situation from the artist taking your CD without your permission and using it to record their music.



Apple and U2 did this a couple of years ago when they 'gave' every one (without first asking if you wanted it) a free down load of a U2 album and that is exactly analogous.

It was still your IPhone but U2 still owned that part of the content that they and Apple decided to automatically down load on to it.

[sign in to see URL]

---
HAPPINESS, THE IGNOBLE LIFE GOAL OF THE ILLITERATE
2/14/2018, 7:10 pm Link to this post PM mais oui Blog
 
cooter50 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user
Global user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 3948
Karma: 2 (+14/-12)
Reply | Quote
Re: Graffiti


Not the same, a automated Authorized download is NOT the same as YOU recording for first YOUR use and possible sale or even free distribution which IS copyright infringement.
2/16/2018, 1:40 pm Link to this post PM cooter50 Blog
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3 





You are not logged in (login)