Posts by Lilith __
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Capture: Howling at the Moon, in reply to David Hood,
(a) “very fine work involving a high degree of concentration, skill and care”;
(b) work “of great delicacy and intense application”;
(c) “remarkable” work; or
(d) work of a “high standard”.Is this the actual legal wording? Because if it is, it sounds like if I create something quickly, or it’s not very good, it’s not covered by copyright…
-
Speaker: Damien Hirst: the dollars and sense?, in reply to Keir Leslie,
That’s not true though – Warhol, Hirst, a few other artists are brands as big as anything.
What’s not true?
What I was saying is that there’s limited point to art if it’s not creative work. What Warhol did was creative, at least at first. But beyond that, pop art is either irrelevant or it’s a kind of confidence trick. And Hirst gets top dollar because he’s made himself notorious. Just because he’s a celebrity doesn’t make his art worthwhile. IMHO. -
Capture: Howling at the Moon, in reply to Fooman,
I think you might be conflating 2 meanings of "original": "original" as in "made by me", and "original" as in "innovative".
Surely a recognisable copy is still a derivative work no matter how many iterations of copying it may have been through.
Isn't the threshold for re-using someone else's photo 10%? ie. up to 10% of your picture may be borrowed from another image?
If Russell's photo was solely of something someone else had made, then it might not meet the test of being an original. At least I think that's how it goes.
And don't libraries and museums often retain the copyright in their collections, even if it's more than 50 years old?
-
Speaker: Damien Hirst: the dollars and sense?, in reply to 81stcolumn,
Trivial – Immediacy
The thing with fine art that tries to compete with popular culture is that pop culture always does it better, bigger and more widely. What’s the point of art that’s no more creative than a soft-drink commercial? Why bother? It Hirst hadn’t pulled off this trick of selling his work for vast sums, I doubt anybody would take any notice of it.
-
Capture: Howling at the Moon, in reply to JacksonP,
if there was a way I could allay your fears in posting your best pictures on here without them being pilfered, I would gladly do it.
Jackson, you're a sweetie. I've thought a bit more about this, and about online sharing in general.
I launched into commenting here because a particular discussion came up and I had things I really wanted to say. I was in a hurry that day and I chose the first pseudonym that came to mind. I also added some underscores in place of a surname because the form validation didn't seem to want to accept me without a surname (I think this was actually just a random glitch or my being in a hurry!) So if you've wondered why the underscores, now you know...if I could take them out, I would!
And I post words and pictures here because I want to share and connect, not because I want to show off my work. I take pictures all the time, some of them are careful and considered and a lot are just snapshots or visual note-taking. Certain types of shots I reserve for commercial use or for my own purposes. But there are a lot of quite nice incidental shots that I'm happy to post online if the occasion suits. The visual conversations here are awesome, and the sharing gives me a real buzz.
I guess it's like the conversation we were having about putting up pictures of ourselves, Jackson. I think it depends what the reason is. If you're building a reputation or brand for yourself, then that's entirely appropriate, although obviously not compulsory!
But not everything has to be public.
-
Capture: Howling at the Moon, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
Mt Albert is Mt Vic’s consort, and thrusts up over Newtown/Berhampore
bloody NZ placenames! So there's one in Auck and one in Welly??
I remember being heartily amused the first time I visited Mt Cook, Wellington. I mean, really .
-
Capture: Howling at the Moon, in reply to JacksonP,
It is very much a grey area, and like Sacha, it seems we would benefit from some clarification and consistency around the rules of engagement.
I’m just going out so will shut up shortly, but it seems to me that plagiarism of words is not a grey area, and re-posting someone else’s writing without even attribution is really frowned upon.
Why is it any different with photos?
-
Capture: Howling at the Moon, in reply to Russell Brown,
Wellington. Chilly and beautiful.
Oh right! That's Wellington all over, innit!
But wait...did you mean Mt Vic?
Also, you managed to reply to me while my comment was mistakenly saying “with permission” rather than “without”. Damn.
I was too quick off the mark! I did wonder quite where you were coming from. :-)
Right, out into the sun with me...stunning day here today, may have to get out my summer clothes again...
-
Capture: Howling at the Moon, in reply to Russell Brown,
iPhone long-shot
You can see the Belt of Venus/earth shadow creeping up the sky. Looks like a beautiful evening in Auckland!! Was a bit chilly here.
-
Capture: Howling at the Moon, in reply to Russell Brown,
Bloggers will often be making non-commercial use of images to illustrate a commentary on the news organisation that published the image.
I think there’s a big difference between a thumbnail (with link to original) and reposting a full-size image. This is the minefield that Pinterest has sauntered recklessly into.
the Herald is using one of my photos with permission today (credit: “Photo/Supplied”). But that’s fine – Ana’s a mate, she mentions my name and – importantly – there’s no craft in the photograph.
Permission doesn’t have to have money attached. But I think it’s important that a gift is recognised as such.