On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Douglas Bagnall <douglas(a)paradise.net.nz>wrote;wrote:
Speaking of art, mainstream visual art doesn't rely on copyright at all
-- it only cares about providence and exclusive possession. All the
most expensive paintings are out of copyright. This continues with new
media art, as far as I know: collectors buy expensive DVD-Rs and not
Does exclusive possession not have direct ties with copyright though? If
there is no control over copies, then that opens the floodgates to
uncontrolled multiples, driving costs of artworks down due to their lack of
There is an interesting article on "Life After Copyright" here for any
Also, there are plenty of big earners who's work is still under copyright.
Warhol, Koons, and of course Hirst are still well in copyright (and the list
goes on). Hirst, particularly, has been hard-lined about claiming it, to a
...and of course there is the ongoing saga between Shepherd Fairey and AP
You may also be interested to hear that the Ministry of Economic Development
released their policy proposal document for the amended s92A yesterday. It
is open for public submission until 7 August.
In a nutshell, it is a considerable improvement on it's predecessor, however
Internet Termination is still on the table, the definition of ISP remains
broad (practically anyone with a website or shared internet connection), and
there doesn't appear to be any punishment for false accusations.
And CFF Media Release about it here: