call me Skippy

call me Skippy

Joined on Feb 28, 2013

Comments

Total: 5, showing: 1 – 5
In reply to:

call me Skippy: I have to say, I find the ruling outragous. Ownership and right of property have no intrinsic value whatsoever in my opinion. In my opinion it is functional: As long as it is beneficial for the whole society to guaranty these rights, they should be protected. In this case, this work of art occupies public space (the memorial I mean) and I dont think it is beneficial to guaranty any right of ownership in this case to the artist. Such rights impede on usage of public space in this case. People may feel otherwise - which is ok. But looking at the proliferation of creativity one can observe, all this money-grabbing might get very nasty. If a public administration - for example a local authority - commissions such work of art, the should really make the treaties water-tight and buy all the rights in order to prevent such rulings. Artists who dont want to go along shouldnt get the job. Just give the newcomer a chance - who will be happy to be paid at all.

No loose concept at all - and you proof my point. That I am in favor of a non-ownership concept when it comes to cars doesnt proof anything, because I respect that it is otherwise right now. Furthermore: The amendment leaves ample room for interpretation. What is "just compensation" - to mention one vague concept there. And the concept of property is obviously not absolute, since it can be taken by "due process". And lastly: US isnt the only free country and there are many different takes on property-rights are handled in them. For example: In Germany private property can be forced to become public property when public needs are big enough. It isnt done lightly and often but it can happen for example with land, if it is needed for public infrastructure. BTW: One of my earlier comments clearly stated that I would vote for only commissioning art for public spaces to artists who give up their rights ... BTW: you have a bit loose concept of evidence... :-)

Direct link | Posted on Oct 1, 2013 at 06:10 UTC
In reply to:

call me Skippy: I have to say, I find the ruling outragous. Ownership and right of property have no intrinsic value whatsoever in my opinion. In my opinion it is functional: As long as it is beneficial for the whole society to guaranty these rights, they should be protected. In this case, this work of art occupies public space (the memorial I mean) and I dont think it is beneficial to guaranty any right of ownership in this case to the artist. Such rights impede on usage of public space in this case. People may feel otherwise - which is ok. But looking at the proliferation of creativity one can observe, all this money-grabbing might get very nasty. If a public administration - for example a local authority - commissions such work of art, the should really make the treaties water-tight and buy all the rights in order to prevent such rulings. Artists who dont want to go along shouldnt get the job. Just give the newcomer a chance - who will be happy to be paid at all.

I wouldnt call my concept of property rights loose... And I did think it through, which is why I dont post pictures of my loved ones on freely accessible websites. But you are comparing apples and oranges with this example anyway, because there are other rights than my rights as a photographer involved when I put a picture of someone up, nameley their right to their picture and public appearance.
And in the case of the memorial it definitley is against creativity whats going on: I would never take a picture of the monument and post it anywhere - commercial or otherwise now. The notion, that property rights are at the basis of a free society is flawed anyway. Just no connection there: monarchies had property rights, totalitarian systems knew them - as did societies in the distant past. This connection you make is just a notion of a special flavor of political opinion or theory. Even if I bought the connection: Free societies differ vastly in regards to the property rights they protect.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 30, 2013 at 21:51 UTC
In reply to:

call me Skippy: I have to say, I find the ruling outragous. Ownership and right of property have no intrinsic value whatsoever in my opinion. In my opinion it is functional: As long as it is beneficial for the whole society to guaranty these rights, they should be protected. In this case, this work of art occupies public space (the memorial I mean) and I dont think it is beneficial to guaranty any right of ownership in this case to the artist. Such rights impede on usage of public space in this case. People may feel otherwise - which is ok. But looking at the proliferation of creativity one can observe, all this money-grabbing might get very nasty. If a public administration - for example a local authority - commissions such work of art, the should really make the treaties water-tight and buy all the rights in order to prevent such rulings. Artists who dont want to go along shouldnt get the job. Just give the newcomer a chance - who will be happy to be paid at all.

It doesnt mean that at all: To display something publicly is not that same as designing a statue or memorial for a public space. A museum for example is for public display without the exhibited artwork being part of public space. That would be a compromise. If access is dependend on admission or stuff, the right should be protected. Otherwise, like in the case of a memorial or statue on a public place, everything should be fair game. Think it through: what is considered protected by copyright seems to be along the lines of what traditionally was considered "creative". But with all the changes going on, it should either apply to way, way more professions and products, which would have bad consequences. For example: Look up the french law and what it has to say about the Eiffel-Tower. Or mentioned in another comment: What about flower-buques or stuff like that? The other possible way to go would be to relax the rules, which I favor. If it is money vs. creativity I vote creativity.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 30, 2013 at 19:02 UTC
In reply to:

call me Skippy: I have to say, I find the ruling outragous. Ownership and right of property have no intrinsic value whatsoever in my opinion. In my opinion it is functional: As long as it is beneficial for the whole society to guaranty these rights, they should be protected. In this case, this work of art occupies public space (the memorial I mean) and I dont think it is beneficial to guaranty any right of ownership in this case to the artist. Such rights impede on usage of public space in this case. People may feel otherwise - which is ok. But looking at the proliferation of creativity one can observe, all this money-grabbing might get very nasty. If a public administration - for example a local authority - commissions such work of art, the should really make the treaties water-tight and buy all the rights in order to prevent such rulings. Artists who dont want to go along shouldnt get the job. Just give the newcomer a chance - who will be happy to be paid at all.

The analogy doesnt hold. First, we have rules, where I am allowed to park my car. If I dont adhere, it gets towed. Second, there are good reasons to enforce property rights in the car-case (but now that you mention it: I would be strongly in favor for a non-ownership policy on cars. Would be way more efficient, since cars are standing around and doing nothing about 90% of the time.). Third: I dont park my car in order to be looked upon and being part of the public space. It is a necessity for the car to stand around, not an intentional way to design a public space and define it. Fourth: In fact, the car manufacturer will most likely not bother me, if I put a photo of the car on a stamp. Despite the fact, that he put a lot of creative work into it. I can take a picture of a ferrari (even if only one of this series has been build) and sell posters of it. More reasons but almost no characters left...

Direct link | Posted on Sep 30, 2013 at 06:06 UTC

I have to say, I find the ruling outragous. Ownership and right of property have no intrinsic value whatsoever in my opinion. In my opinion it is functional: As long as it is beneficial for the whole society to guaranty these rights, they should be protected. In this case, this work of art occupies public space (the memorial I mean) and I dont think it is beneficial to guaranty any right of ownership in this case to the artist. Such rights impede on usage of public space in this case. People may feel otherwise - which is ok. But looking at the proliferation of creativity one can observe, all this money-grabbing might get very nasty. If a public administration - for example a local authority - commissions such work of art, the should really make the treaties water-tight and buy all the rights in order to prevent such rulings. Artists who dont want to go along shouldnt get the job. Just give the newcomer a chance - who will be happy to be paid at all.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 29, 2013 at 18:05 UTC as 62nd comment | 9 replies
Total: 5, showing: 1 – 5