But what’s covered by copyright is an idea. It’s not a general idea like “Half Dome at dawn” or “a story about a puppet that turns into a boy”, but it still exists only as a concept: the arrangement of colors in a photograph, or words on a page.
For example, if someone scans your photo of Half Dome into a computer, the thing that results is totally different from your photograph in every physical sense. It’s an arrangement of magnetic charges on a hard disk, darkened spots on a CD-R, or electrical charges in a memory chip; it bears no physical resemblance to a piece of photo paper or celluloid with an image burned into it.
The only similarity is that the information represented by that arrangement of charges can be interpreted to produce a picture that looks like the photograph. You don’t just have a monopoly over the negative and the photo, but over every possible representation of every possible kind of information that can be converted into the image on your photo paper.
Copyright is a monopoly over an entire category of information. If that’s not an “idea”, I don’t know what is.
YosemiteBabe: No I don’t think you have ownership over your picture of HalfDome.
However you clearly think different, which is what I am trying to talk about. Why do you feel that you should have control over that? Other than the obvious monetary incentive.
If it bears no physical resemblance, how come when everyone looks at it, they can recognize it immediately as the same exact photograph that I took?
Yeah, and it’s still instantly recognizable as the same exact photograph. So what is your point, exactly? Everyone can still tell it’s the same exact photo. That’s usually the main objective.
However, if someone wants to Photoshop the dickens out of my photograph so that it no longer is recognizable as my photograph, (or is altered so dramatically so that is substantially different from the original) then that probably falls under “fair use”. And even if it doesn’t, I personally don’t have a problem with it. Photoshop away. But when it is instantly recognizable as my photo, then it’s not just in the fuzzy vague area of “idea”. It’s a pretty accurate replication of the original negative.
When someone bootlegs a copy of WindowsXP and sells it on the blackmarket at a profit, they are taking pains to make their blackmarketed CD as identical as possible to the original. They aren’t copying a vague “idea”, they are copying the original, as-is, for a personal profit. I don’t know where the “idea” angle comes into all of this, to be honest.
You’ve lost me. We are not on the same wavelength here. Your concept of “idea” and mine are not the same, obviously.
Do you think I have ownership over my car?
As an artist, I’ve never liked anyone else drawing over my sketches. Except for teachers, in a teaching environment. I considered it rude. I daresay a lot of artists don’t like other people drawing over their work, even if they just draw over a copy. It’s an artistic philosophy thing, I guess. I figure that if I was able to come up with the drawing on my own, then everyone else should be able to as well. Let them come up with their own stuff. I won’t draw over theirs, and they won’t draw over mine, and we’re all happy.
If you don’t understand what I’m getting at, that’s fine. But I doubt I am alone in the sentiment.
There’s another thing I’ve been wanting to ask you who think we all should just give up whatever we make as soon as we create it:
Let’s say I have a lovely negative of a Half Dome picture. Let’s say that we’re living in your preferred alternate universe where no one owns anything, really. Let’s say I release a small print of my Half Dome picture, but never release a large print. And I physically own the negative. And let’s say that you want to print out a large print of my Half Dome negative. Would you expect (in this alternate universe, where I am not entitled to control the stuff I create) that I hand over my negative so you could make a larger print of it? Do I owe everyone that? Is it not enough that they can rip off (er, sorry, “use the idea” :rolleyes: ) the smaller version of my photograh that is already released?
In a nutshell, would you want access to all my files and negatives and sketchbooks as well, so that you could publish them or profit from them or just mess around with them? Because, after all, I don’t really own them. How far would you prefer to take this?
Programs on your computer process a string of numbers (say, a JPEG file) and produce an image that bears a strong resemblance to your original photo. But the string of numbers is not the photo; indeed, another program could conceivably take the same string of numbers and turn it into an animation, a sound clip, or a text document. The information is only one possible representation of the picture, and the picture is only one possible interpretation of the information.
Well, what do you mean by photo? Obviously the picture on a computer screen isn’t a piece of photographic paper. The picture on a screen looks the same, or reasonably close, to the picture on the photo paper, but the only real similarity is the arrangement of colored dots. The arrangement of the pixels on the screen is the same as the arrangement of pigment on the photo paper.
This arrangement isn’t a “thing”; it’s a concept, an attribute of a thing. It can be present in pixels on a computer screen, tiles in a mosaic, or patches in a quilt. You can study one thing that has this attribute, then apply the attribute to another thing, without damaging or altering the original.
Have a look at the Gallery of CSS Descramblers. All the items on that page share the attribute of describing the way to decode DVDs; however, the items themselves are very different: C source code, Perl source code, pictures, movies, T-shirts, talking characters, English text, haiku, MP3, MIDI, etc.
Just as someone made the CSS decryption code into a song, they could make your picture into a song. One simple way would be to read off the individual pixel colors, left to right and top to bottom:
Old MacHalfdome
(to the tune of “Old MacDonald”)
Black black black black gray gray white
White white gray blue green
Green green green blue blue white gray
Gray gray black black blue…
It would be a very long song. But you can see that although it bears no resemblance to your photo, it can contain all the same information that’s in “Half Dome.jpg”. A patient listener could set individual pixels as he listened to the song, and after several hours he’d have his own copy of your picture.
The song and the JPEG file are obviously not the same thing, but they share the attribute that they can be interpreted to form the same image that’s on the photo.
Of course. Your car is a physical thing and only one person can have it at a time. Since you bought the car, that person is you.
On the other hand, it would be ridiculous to say you own your car’s size, shape, or color. You can own the car, but you can’t own its attributes–just like you can own a piece of paper, but you can’t own the arrangement of colors on that paper.
The OP and I have both supported the idea of legal copyright (albeit not for moral reasons), so maybe I shouldn’t be answering…
Of course not. As you said, you own the negative; you aren’t obligated to hand over your possessions just so other people can study their attributes.
And if they want to do that, I don’t care. As I previously mentioned, if someone wants to Photoshop one of my pictures so that it is no longer recognizable as my Half Dome picture, why should I care? How is this any different?
Sigh. Well, in my case, often the Half Dome picture I release to the world is in the form of a high resolution jpeg file. I scanned it, I retouched it with Photoshop, I put my name and copyright notice on the jpeg file. Sometimes I “watermark” it using Photoshop. So the jpeg file is copyrighted. And if someone wants to make a weirded-out special-effected Photoshop version of this picture—so altered that most people would never recognize it, then they can have at it. But if they just want to make the picture a little smaller or larger, or perhaps change it from color to B&W (but it still is instantly recognizable as my photo) then no. I don’t think they should do that and make a profit off of it. (And “making a profit” is a key issue for most of us.)
You can parse words and nitpick all day long about digital files and whatnot, but if the bottom line is that the image is still instantly recognizable as my photo, then it’s still my photo.
Actually, I never doubted that you would consider my car my own. It’s mswas I am wondering about.
If I created the atributes, I own the rights to the atributes.
Actually, once again, I never doubted that you’d feel that I would be entitled to keep my negatives. It’s mswas I’m wondering about.
To clarify it even further: I have a small print or small jpeg file of my Half Dome picture. That’s all I’ve released to the public; I’ve never let anyone else get their hands on the negative.
Other people would like to see a larger picture. Maybe a poster-sized picture. They feel deprived and robbed because they can’t see a larger version of Half Dome, but they’ll never see a larger version of Half Dome without my negative. Also, some ground-breaking artist has a concept that they want to explore, but it requires a larger version of Half Dome. They have a simply brilliant mural-sized concept—the world is clamouring to benefit from this brilliance—and yet it requires access to my Half Dome negative. But I won’t hand the negative over.
Since mswas thinks that I shouldn’t own or control my Half Dome picture, shouldn’t I be obligated to hand over the negative so that all of society can benefit from the things that can be created from it? Things that I’m too stingy to allow? I control the ways that my Half Dome picture can be shown, by depriving others to access to the negative. Should I be allowed to do this? (Since, as mswas thinks, I don’t “own” the picture.)
Yosemitebabe: I feel you are misrepresenting my point of view, as well as not answering my question.
So firstly let me reiterate my question: WHY do you feel that you own the rights to your picture of the half-dome? What about your creative process makes that picture yours.
As Mr 2001 said, I support legal copyrights, but not moral ones. I do not think that you inherently own that picture of the half-dome. However, physical property laws are much easier to deal with, so yes you do own your car and you do own the negative, both of which are physical property, and if you give them to someone else then you no longer will have them.
That is more or less the crux of physical vs intellectual property. Only one of us can have your car, but both of us can have your picture of the half-dome.
So please, address WHY you feel that the picture that you shot of the Half-Dome belongs to you. I am not advocating taking it away, nor that we should have complete and total rights to it necessarily, what I am trying to get at is the moral issue. Why you think that YOU own it, just because you were standing in the right spot with the right camera at the right time to get that particular picture. What makes it inherently yours? That’s where my quibble is. I DO NOT believe it is inherently yours. I am willing to accept that legally it is yours, as allowing you to profit from it, ensures that you will then take more pictures, and that will benefit society. However, I do not believe that the picture actually belongs to you outside of the realm of legality.
And no I don’t support the idea of ridding the world of intellectual property. I just believe that the idea of intellectual property is an arbitrary notion that we invented to make capitalism work.
As for your example of your drawings. I never understood the problem with people editing your artwork. I am a musician, electronic music specifically, so cutting and pasting from other people’s work is an ingrained part of my artistic culture. If/When I ever actually publish my work, I will join MACOS (Musicians Against Copyright Of Samples) many of my favorite artists belong to this, and oftentimes they will release CDs with samples from their work so that you can throw them into your sampler and copy away. I mean, they provide the material to do so, for you.
OK, but how about the song “Old MacHalfdome”? It’s not instantly recognizable as your photo, yet it contains all the same information as the JPEG, and a dedicated listener can produce your image using nothing but the song and Windows Paintbrush.
Or the source code for a program that produces a string of numbers, which happen to be the same as the numbers in your JPEG?
What if the program only produces the same numbers when you give it a certain starting number, and any other input produces a totally different string? (Do you own the program, the starting number, or both?)
You can see where I’m going with this. If you claim ownership over the photo, and a JPEG that represents the photo, and a song that can be used to produce the JPEG, then you can claim ownership over almost any information in any form (depending on just how far you want to reach).
If I cut a piece of wood to a certain unique length–a length which has never been used to cut a piece of wood before–do I “own” that length? If not, what makes it different from a unique arrangement of colors on a piece of paper?
Consider that I could have put just as much effort into choosing that length as you did into choosing your camera viewpoint, lenses, and anything else that went into your picture.
(Suppose I find out later that someone actually has cut something to that length before… do I owe him royalties? ;))
No you didn’t create a thing. You took a machine, stood in front of a natural rock formation, with the sun beating down on you as it would that time of year and that time of day. You adjusted the aperture on the machine, and the exposure and then clicked a button. You didn’t create a thing.
And I feel you are not answering mine. If I don’t own my picture of Half Dome, then why aren’t you supporting or my obligation to others to hand over my negatives and source files to the? I don’t own the “idea”, after all. How dare I keep it all to myself? How dare I “control” it in such a way? Please, why don’t you answer me that?
I earned the right to “own” something I created. Just like I’ve earned the right to get paid for my hard work. Because that’s how it works in our society. I don’t know how else to explain it to you.
No one else was really responsible for that unique thing I made—sure, some equipment and gadgets were involved in helping me make it, but no other individual was there creating its specific uniqueness. Just me. I came up with the idea, I had a specific message to convey. Because of that, I’m entitled to earn money for it, and I’m also entitled to keep my message my own, and not watch someone else warp it, take credit for it (and people will do this) or twist my work into something that I find abhorrent.
The work was the end result of my time, my effort, my personal education. Why don’t I own it? It’s my unique expression, no one else’s. I didn’t ask for any “collaborators”, and I sure don’t think anyone else is entitled to profit from my work.
Because I made it. Just the same way I make pottery, or draw a sketch, or whatever. I get to call the shots as to what is done with it.
The people who sold me the pencil and paper (or camera and negative) were paid for their contribution already. I did the rest.
Is that all you think there is to photography? I can only assume that you clearly don’t understand anything about it.
I was in the right spot because I got in my car and paid for gas to get up to Yosemite. I paid for my lodging at the Wawona Hotel. I knew what spot to be in. I took many photos from many angles. I knew what aperture to use on my camera, what shutter speed, what lens, what kind of film. I walked around and around and got just the right compostion. I visited the spot several times a day (and stayed at Yosemite several days) so I could get a variety of shots. I got the film developed and then I retouched it with Photoshop, cropped it so it was just so. I burned this area and dodged that area.
I didn’t just stand there and point and shoot. And I hasten to add, I’m not even that remarkable of a photographer! I am flattered to see how easily you try to trivialize the art of photography. See how popular you’ll be if you say something like that to a full-time photographer: “You were just there and shot the picture.” Boy—they’ll straighten you out fast.
While you’re at it, do you want me to explain to you in excruciating detail about all the effort and education I had to go through to make a 20 minute sketch? Or do you want to trivialize my drawing into, “You just scribbled a few lines on a paper for a few minutes so why do you think you own it?”. Let’s see how many other art forms you can trivialize and insult while you’re at it.
I dodged a bullet there, I guess. :rolleyes:
All I can say is, I am glad you and your ilk will probably never be able to influence our laws and policies enough to enforce your obvious feelings. Because if you did, a lot of us would be very stingy about releasing our creations to the public. I, for one, would probably only release smaller prints of my photographs, and I’d have to resort to scanning my negatives at home (which would mean that they would not be scanned at professional quality). I wouldn’t want anything I made to leave my hands, for fear that the person at the photo lab would take a liking to one of my negatives and sell a scan of it to someone else. Or use it in a way that I found either morally or aesthetically reprehensible. (And that is an important detail as well, and another reason why I don’t want anyone screwing around with my creations.)
And it does work. If we didn’t have this “arbitrary notion”, a lot of people wouldn’t be able to work fulltime as artists, writers and composers.
Well, bully for you. I’m glad you feel the way you do; knock yourself out. However, I am eternally grateful that you cannot dictate how the rest of us artists, writers and musicians should feel about our creations. Just because you don’t get it, just because you don’t give a damn what other people do with your work, it doesn’t mean that the rest of our feelings or motivations aren’t valid.
You’ve never published your work? How do you know that you won’t think differently about all this when your work is published? When I was a callow youth and hadn’t any of my work published, I had significantly different feelings about my publishing “rights” than I do now.
Once again, bully for you. And you know what? I’ve done a little bit of the same thing. I’ve made web graphics that are free for anyone to use. I just did 'em for the fun of it. But I chose which graphics I wanted to share. I don’t mind sharing—I just resent the idea of being expected or forced to. I might also gently suggest that the reason you feel that no one “owns” their work is that your own work is so dependant on “sampling” of others in such a direct way. Not every artist is like you. Most of us don’t have to have direct access to someone else’s files. We may be “influenced” (as all artists are) but not in such a direct way.
Don’t understand that? That’s fine. Don’t understand. But please consider that your feelings and philosophy are in the minority, and there’s a reason for that.
You amaze me. Are you being serious?
So Ansel Adams (not that I am comparing myself to Adams) didn’t create anything either? Then why is he considered so remarkable? Why are his photographs so groundbreaking? Why are his techniques still written about and admired with such awe? He didn’t do anything but stand in front of a rock formation and click away.
You insult Ansel Adams, and me and every other photographer. Why not insult Van Gogh and all other artists while you’re at it? Van Gogh didn’t create anything. Just smeared some pigment on a bit of stretched fabric. Is that all there was to it? And Beethoven. He didn’t create anything. Just banged away on a piano. Scribbled some notes on a paper. He didn’t create anything either, did he?
Well, the photo paper with a picture of Half Dome on it is more valuable than a piece of blank paper–ask anyone who bought it. A canvas with a Van Gogh painting on it provides utility that a blank canvas lacks, and people gladly pay much more for the Van Gogh than the empty canvas. That utility had to come from somewhere.
Actually, that’s not how it works in our society. You don’t get to profit from certain things, no matter how much hard work you put into them–child pornography and homegrown drugs, for instance. The judge won’t be impressed by arguments that you deserve to profit from a basement full of marijuana plants because of all the time you spent getting the lighting and nutrients just right.
The law, right or wrong, has decided that society is served better by taking away people’s ability to profit from child pornography and illegal drugs, no matter how much hard work went into creating them. It could certainly do the same with ideas/information in general.
On the other hand, that’s purely a legal distinction and it has no bearing on my arguments against moral ownership of information.
What about the guy who invented your camera, film, or development process? Without him, you wouldn’t have the same picture. You might have a different picture that might be just as good, but the unique picture you made depends on your equipment as well as your artistic talent.
Anyway, I’m eagerly awaiting your answers to the questions in my last post. I think they’ll be enlightening.
YosemiteBabe: Your ability to be offended by a dissenting opinion while managing to avoid ever once addressing the original post is astounding.
I keep asking “Why do you feel that you own the rights to work you create?” and your answer is simply “Because I do”.
You’ve touched on the idea of the amount of work that goes into it, that’s a start but that’s not going very deeply into it. You’ve managed to hijack this thread into something that I wished it NOT to be, by turning it into a policy of copyright, and not PHILOSOPHY of copyright thread.
I want to know WHY you believe the way you do about copyrights. If your answer is “I just do.” then you have really nothing to add to this thread.
I don’t think your point of view is invalid. I just happen to view it differently.
You choose to not listen to a word I have said, even though you and I have discussed this in three threads. If you’d ACTUALLY read any of my posts you would realize that I do support copyrights. I think that we should have copyrights for a period of 14 years + 14 years if the author is still alive.
However, I believe that all creation belongs to society. I believe that the only purpose for issuing copyrights is to make it possible for the artisan to build on their work, by allowing them to profit from it, that they may feed themselves. I think that this benefits society more than the work being automatically in the public domain.
So perhaps if you’d read what I actually write, instead of just filling in the blanks and pigeonholing me for having a completely different thought process on the subject than you have, we could have a discourse. Thus far, I have illustrated my opinion and you have ignored it, and have avoided the entire topic while making voluminous posts.
I think many artists are egomaniacs, I won’t even count myself out of that category necessarily, however, I do not think that artists have any particular characteristic that completely seperates them from the general populace. I see creativity in ALL walks of life, and much of it goes unrewarded with anything resembling the power of a copyright. I think that every person in their own way is an artist, they express themselves with every action they take, every moment of every day. So no, I do not think Beethoven, Ansel Adams, or Vang Gogh are any more spectacular than the average person. While yes, I relate more to Beethoven than your average person, and am much more fascinated by the person he was, but that’s simply because I see characteristics that we share, or characteristics that I would like to share. It doesn’t make him any more special as a person than the people who do my laundry, or sweep the streets.
As for my work, you are quick to jump to conclusions. I described something about the type of culture that my particular art comes from. I actually do not use any samples other than drum samples which are not held by a copyright. And I am talking about single hits, not riffs. However you chose to view MY particular artistry in a certain light, so that your argumentum ad hominem would work. However, as it doesn’t apply to me, we’ll let that one slide.
As for your assumptions of my photography knowledge. I do not have any disdain for the artistry behind photography. While I am not a photographer, I do know something about it, because two of my really good friends are both professional photographers, and I know that a lot of work and ingenuity goes into their work. However in the end, the ingenuity is in knowing how to view lighting and how to operate a machine, and how to view space within a frame. These are all “TECHNICAL” skills. As is painting, as is musicianship. So while I do respect them as artists, I don’t think that their ability to take a better photograph of a mountain makes them have any more of an inherent right to that picture of that mountain, other than I think it benefits society for them to be able to be paid for their work, so that they may continue to focus upon their area of specialization.
Now if you want to keep pigeonholing my idea, then by all means you can remain bewildered by the fact that I don’t think you should be forced to give up your negative if it will make you feel that my argument is easier to swallow, if it’s easier for you not to give the required thought to what I’ve said, then by all means continue to feel that in the sake of your internal consistancy, I should want society to confiscate your negative.
However, I am still interested to know why you believe that as a creator you have any inherent right to your creation. What most interests me is why you have an aversion to someone taking your work and editing it? ie. your example of drawing over one of your sketches. (Let’s say a photocopy of one so that the original may remain intact).
I believe that information should be free, I recognize that we must push information through required channels to benefit society, but the freer it is, the better off society is. That’s all I feel about copyrights. I see a practical application for them, I am not advocating getting rid of copyrights, but I do think that they are an arbitrary measure that is required to make our society run properly. I do not believe that there is some moral, inherent, or divine property of the creation of a product that elevates the creator to godlike status over their creation.
So, I still am not clear on your position, within the realm of the original post, so if you can illuminate that for me I would appreciate it.
Let me apologise first, to butt into the middle of what seems like a three-way discourse between mswas, yosemitebabe and Mr2001.
I proffer my point of view:
With regard to the OP, i believe that nobody can own an idea. To come up with it is another thing, but to own it - I believe that nobody can have that right.
Copyright is a form of recognition given to the one who first came up first with the idea. It’s society’s way of saying: “Wow, we’re impressed with you, b/c no one yet has discovered this and you are the first. So henceforth, you shall be known as the one who discovered this idea. A copyright is your reward.”
Here, i’d like to offer another point: I believe that giving someone a copyright is to deprive another (or many others) in the future, of the discovery of a similar idea.
Now, how’s that for fair? Current legistlation (under duress from some big companies ie disney) rewards the first person, and prohibits everyone else from infringing upon the idea, even though others might have come up with the same idea had they not been exposed to it.
An idea is intangible; a product of the human mind. I believe that the limitations of the mind ie imagination is infinite. What someone might come up with, another most probably can independently duplicate as well.
So to allow someone to place a copyright on an idea is to impose a barrier upon the human mind. To go to the extreme, it would be infringing upon free thought.
The CEO of Walt Disney wants us to say: “Wow, the concept of MIckey Mouse is truly unique and special, something none of us will come up with in a million years.” where in fact we should really be saying: “Wow, since you’re the first one to come up with it, we’ll give you some recognition. You certainly do not deserve x LONG years of copyright just because you were born earlier than other would-be Walt Disneys; Now, shoo.”
I advocate that society recognise a discovery of a currently unique idea; well, after all, we should give you credit b/c you discovered it and thus, you can have x (say 5) years of copyright just to profit from your idea.
After all, that is the whole issue after all. Profit.
I definately do not agree that a copyright should be a reward/incentive to get people to discover/create new material.
The capacity for ideas is inherent in us all. If Alexander Graham Bell didn’t invent the telephone, someone else would have.
Just because you don’t want to invent something because of the lack of copyright does not automatically mean that it is society’s loss. For all you know, someone else might come up with something better.
As a last point, I’d like to state that an incentive is not necessary for creation/inventions. Case in point, just look at the amount of shareware on the internet.
I get that there is some on-the-fringe, geeky crackpot way of making other things from my jpeg file. All I care about is the actual image of Half Dome. If you want to make a “song” from the jpeg file, go at it. As long as you don’t start making t-shirts with my Half Dome image on it and selling them, or using the actual visual depiction of my Half Dome picture in some other way, I am unconcerned. In other words, do what you will with the file. As long as the end result doesn’t have people looking at it and saying, “Hey—that looks like yosemitebabe’s ‘Half Dome’ picture”, I don’t care.I DON’T CARE. IT IS FINE WITH ME TO USE THE FILE IN SOME GEEKY CRACKPOT DIGITAL WAY. I hope that is clear enough for you!
Frankly, I don’t think that this somewhat obscure artform of taking digital files and making them into “something else” will ever be a mainstream form of art. I don’t anticipate that “Old MacHalfDome” will ever be on the Top 40.
Ah yes. The exception to the rule.
And why would it? Why not go all the way and take away everyone’s ability to make any money off of anything they do? Any work they perform? Why stop with creative works?
Yes, and we’ve already covered this in a previous thread. The people who invented and manufactured the camera, equipment, and every other product or gadget I used to create my photo have already been paid. They also sold “rights”, up front, for the use of the item they made. Just like I can sell (in a “work for hire” agreement) all rights to my artwork for a set fee, they sold certain “rights” to the use of their equipment. Meaning, I paid for it, there were no strings attached to the use of the equipment (no license agreement) and that is that.
What is it that you are so slyly trying to imply here?
You also astonish me by not reading my posts.
I don’t want my unique creation bastardized or otherwise tainted in a way that I find objectionable on an aesthetic or moral level, at least not while I am alive. These unique works are an extension of my personality; they took years to develop and often are a manifestation of my life experience. I don’t invite every stranger to “collaborate” with me in these works. Let them express their personality, soul and life experience in some other way.
I don’t want others to profit from my unique efforts.
I don’t want others to take credit for my unique efforts. (And they will if they think they can get away with it.)
I believe that those who do the work should get credit for it, and should be the ones to profit from it, or at least to designate who should profit from it. Any work. Because it is work.
And I already told you all of this.
I’ve told you already. What is it with you? Are you trying to dictate in what direction this thread may go?
No shit, Sherlock.
And your posts are not voluminous? And you have not ignored what I’ve said? How amusing you are.
They are average in the context that they put their pants on one leg at a time, yes. But if you do not see anything remarkable in what they did, then you have much to learn.
All humans are “special”, and it is true, many people have unsung and unerappreciated talents. But with that said, the effort and sacrifice a person undergoes to cultivate a talent can be significant. The depths of their soul that they reveal in their work can be significant.
I’ve seen people with a “talent” who, when confronted with the discipline it will take to get really good at it, give up. (“You mean it won’t come to me instantly? I’ll have to study and work hard and take a lot of criticism? Yikes. Never mind then. I’ll go to the beach.”) So, when someone decides to go through all that it takes to become good at something, to successfully express their creativity, they are more “special” than the person who kicks back and goes to the beach. At least in that one facet of their lives. Every time.
Each person with a talent makes a choice. Some decide to go to the beach and let the talent die because it’s simply easier for them. The ones that don’t let the talent die are “special” to me, and to most of us. If you don’t agree, that’s fine, but I daresay that your viewpoint would be in the minority.
To be as polite as I possibly can, I see no evidence that you know much at all about photography.
Yeah yeah yeah. Have you told them that they really don’t “create” anything?
You don’t know what “technical skills” are, then. To be a good creative artist, you need to transcend mere “technical skills”. It’s not just about “ingenuity”. It’s heart, a sense of humor, an intangible thing that differs in each individual, and the ability to express it with some technical prowess. (Or not. Many of us would prefer to see an artist with less technical skill but more personality and heart. And some of us can tell the difference.)
A lot of “newbies” think it’s all “technical” when they start out. I don’t know if you are a “newbie” or not; all I’m saying is that a lot of “newbies” think the same way you do on some of these issues. They soon learn that it’s much more than that.
I don’t wish to offend, but frankly, don’t think you have a clue half the time of what you are talking about. You just think you do. Ah, I remember those days in my own life. I used to have this button that said, “I am an art student. I know everything.” This phase seems to apply to most creative “newbies”. It soon will pass.
I don’t think you even remotely comprehend what they are doing.
I suspect that’s because you have no idea what they are doing.
Actually I have one other thing to point out. That many great artists, I’ll use Salvador Dali as my example, were ridiculed by others within their own establishment for the way they viewed their own art.
So before you go presuming what other people know about the artistic process just because they happen to disagree with you, there’s some food for thought.
Sounds good to me. So let’s say I write a program to automatically translate any JPEG image into a song, complete with tinny mechanical voice and 80s Casio backbeats, and trade your pictures freely on Kazaa. Anyone who wants a copy of your Half Dome image–or any other image I wish to scan and convert to a song–can sit there clicking pixel after pixel until he has the whole thing. You’re fine with that?
Perhaps I’ll also write a program to translate the song back into the original JPEG. Since I know exactly how the song is generated, it shouldn’t be too hard. Are you still fine with it?
Now suppose that instead of a song, my programs work with a seemingly random stream of numbers. Since no one really wants to hear HAL singing “black black green green blue” anyway, it shouldn’t matter that it’s not a music file anymore.
In fact, the program has already been written: it’s called WinZip. You probably have a copy of it on your own computer, or something like it (StuffIt?).
See, when you’re talking about information, and the ownership of information, terms like “geeky crackpot way of doing it” don’t apply. Something ultra-geeky can become user-friendly if someone wants to take the time to make it so, and it will become commonplace if enough people have a reason to do it.
Another example is steganography: hiding information within a picture, document, or whatever. You could have a picture of a dinosaur, constellation, or Jack Valenti’s face (see the CSS Steganography Gallery) which conceals the source code for a program, or perhaps an image of Half Dome. It’s ultra-geek territory now, but if MP3s were to be outlawed, you’d see a lot of pictures of Jack Valenti appear on Kazaa overnight.
There are many instances of hard work and creativity that aren’t rewarded. I could spend hours setting up plastic soldiers to re-enact the invasion of Normandy, but I wouldn’t get paid for it, or have the power to prevent other people from re-enacting Normandy with tiny army men. I could have a flash of brilliance while playing Monopoly, and come up with a strategy to win in the first five minutes every time, but my opponent could learn from it and use it when he plays against someone else.
And that’s a good thing. If everyone starts using better strategies for Monopoly, the game is more exciting, and we have to think even harder to win. Everyone benefits.
Because in other fields, we can let people profit from their work without controlling the actions of everyone else. If I offer to paint your house for $100, I don’t need a government monopoly to make sure I get paid; I don’t need “paint rights management” technology inside your house to make sure you don’t use the paint inappropriately.
When I buy a photograph or a book, the author gets paid. I don’t sign any contracts at the cash register forfeiting my rights to use the information contained therein.
The thing that did it for me was when you started spewing the garbage about “it’s all ‘TECHNICAL SKILL’”. That did it. The little bells went off in my head, and I recognized where you were coming from instantly.
“This person has no clue!”, I told myself. Absolutely not even a smidgen of a clue. Not a whisp of a clue. Not even a molecule of a hint of a clue. Not even in the same universe as a clue.
Anyone who starts carrying on about “all technical skills” and saying that a photographer didn’t “create” anything has tipped their hand. They are in the “absolutely no fricking clue and they don’t even know it” territory. At least in my opinion, of course.
Oooh. “Food for thought”? Ooooooohhhhhh. I am scratching my chin and thinking DEEP THOUGHTS now, thanks to that little nugget.
I can only go by what you write here. And you keep on reinforcing my impression that you have: NO FRICKING **CLUE! **
Sorry, just calling it as I see it. You think it’s all “technical”? That’s clueless. You have offered nothing in these past several posts to contradict the impression you’ve given me. Maybe I’m completely wrong about your knowledge, but how am I to know any differently?
Honestly, I’m not trying to be too harsh. All of us are clueless in something, but it doesn’t mean we’re not smart and talented and all sorts of good things. I can tell you are smart, and no doubt you are talented. If I do say so myself, I was quite capable, talented and smart when I was in art school, but I cringe at some of the cockamamie clueless ideas I spewed out. If I’m wrong about you, I apologize, but you need to show that you have a clue. So far, you haven’t done that.
Mr2001: My mind is reeling: Please give me some time to absorb the further geeky obscure on-the-edge computer stuff you are throwing at me!
Is it easier sleeping at night knowing that if you fail to understand where someone is coming from you can dismiss them outright?
Anyway, I figured a better way to explain where I’m coming from and if you still don’t get it, then I must be clueless.
It’s all a matter of language. Where you say “Created” I say “Captured” in my mind both imply an artistic process, but I feel that an artist is more someone who has the ability to capture a special moment in time, or feeling using their work. So from that point of view, I don’t think that you can own it. You were lucky enough to capture it, but you don’t own it. You view it as “created”, I do not.
Another analogy would be children. Children are created. We fuck, we give birth (though you’re more likely to do the latter than I.) and something that we created comes into the world. However, we don’t own it, not in the same way we own our car. If I want to dismantle a car, I can do so, because I own it, I can bash it with a crowbar as much as I want, because I own it. I cannot do the same thing with my child. Sure I have stewardship over my child for 18 years, which is somethign akin to ownership, but not exactly the same as ownership. This is much how I view copyrights. Except with information, you CANNOT destroy it. The moment you share information with someone else, it’s impossible to destroy it, so I view the creation of information very much as I do the creation of a child, as opposed to the creation of an object. You are welcome to disagree, and if you disagree then I suppose I’ll remain hopelessly clueless.
Only you can decide my fate YosemiteBabe! I pray you make the right decision.
Where does all this melodrama come from? I’m just saying—you don’t demonstrate to me that you have a clue on some of these things. That is all.
In photography this may be more true some time, but you must consider that many photographers set up scenes, set up poses, completely dictate the whole scene. And even when they just “capture” a moment of time, you do realize that a lot of the time they take hundreds of photos and must have the discernment to know which one is the right one? But it’s all “technical” to you? They “created nothing”, they just showed some technical prowess?
Well, I humbly suggest, that’s because (wait for it…) you don’t have a clue!
How about when a photographer sets up a scene, works with models, lighting, poses, creates the whole set up and backdrop—they created it as much as anyone can. They didn’t just stumble upon it by happenstance. And catching the right moment, knowing what to do with it, knowing how to identify it as being the exact thing that they want to express—knowing what area to burn, to dodge, to retouch, to crop—there’s a lot of creation in that. The photograph often isn’t nearly done after the shutter has clicked.
And do you consider drawings and paintings just “capturing” something? For instance, I made a plate from clay on the potter’s wheel. I paint it with underglazes and glazes and then fire it. Did I “capture” it? And another for instance—I made a Zorro plate (don’t ask) and the lady who bought it told me she found it “hilarious”. (It showed a sense of humor, unique to me.) How did I “capture” that? Is that just a (as you put it) just a “TECHNICAL SKILL”?
The child has its own soul, and its own way. A creative work has no soul in the same way that a living entity has, but whatever “soul” it has, its creator gave it. It is an extension of that creator (artist) and their personality, life experience, expression, and so forth.
But do you still think it’s all just about “TECHNICAL SKILL”? Knowing which equipment to use? Just being at the right time and the right place?
::shrug:: At least you are trying to articulate your feelings somewhat, but I will tell you one thing—you cannot speak for what I do with my work. And for other artists’ works. Which is exactly what you have done. You told me that I “created nothing” with my photograph. THAT IS CLUELESS.
My hat’s off to you. I mean it. You show a wonderful sense of humor. Wait a minute! Sense of humor? What’s that? What you just wrote there—that line was whimsical and quirky and expressed a unique quality. But you didn’t really “create” anything unique with that line. You just “captured” it. Huh? What…? :dubious:
But you can see that although it bears no resemblance to your photo, it can contain all the same information that’s in “Half Dome.jpg”. A patient listener could set individual pixels as he listened to the song, and after several hours he’d have his own copy of your picture.
