When One Man's Art Is Another's Crime
Jon Routson used to videotape the filmic experience of going to the movies in Baltimore theaters. You know the sounds, coughs, ringing cell phones, people singing along to the soundtrack, whatever. His images were wobbly, distorted and grainy. Not very Seinfeldian. Not what I'd pay $5 for on every street corner in Manhattan either?
This is his art. Which Roberta Smith says is similar to the "appropriation artists of the early 1980's, who rephotographed existing photographs as a way of commenting on society." Roberta Smith, When One Man's Video Art Is Another's Copyright Crime, NYT.
I say "used to" because Maryland will be joining (Oct. 1) a growing list of states, which includes NY, that "make the unauthorized use of an audiovisual recording device in a movie theater illegal ... The Senate Judiciary Committee also recently approved a bill to make the unauthorized copying and distribution of movies a federal offense." Id.
My question then is -- should copyright prohibit filming one's own experiences, when there is no intent to distribute or profit from what could be considered a personal use derivative work? Isn't this artist merely using the "work" and not the copyright? Should we allow the film industry to fiercely lobby for this seperate law, when copyright law should already protect their interests in preventing mass duplication and redistribution of illegal copies of movies shot in theaters? Especially when "most illegal copies were either duplicates of stolen copies or were shot from tripods in projection booths." Id.
Copyright is supposed to protect consumers as well. As Professor L. Ray Patterson explains: "The copyright owner, by reason of the Copyright Act and the copyright clause, has not only no right to interfere, but a duty not to interfere with the consumer's use of a publicly disseminated work."
Defamer: Dumb Pirate Does Time Over The Alamo
This is his art. Which Roberta Smith says is similar to the "appropriation artists of the early 1980's, who rephotographed existing photographs as a way of commenting on society." Roberta Smith, When One Man's Video Art Is Another's Copyright Crime, NYT.I say "used to" because Maryland will be joining (Oct. 1) a growing list of states, which includes NY, that "make the unauthorized use of an audiovisual recording device in a movie theater illegal ... The Senate Judiciary Committee also recently approved a bill to make the unauthorized copying and distribution of movies a federal offense." Id.
My question then is -- should copyright prohibit filming one's own experiences, when there is no intent to distribute or profit from what could be considered a personal use derivative work? Isn't this artist merely using the "work" and not the copyright? Should we allow the film industry to fiercely lobby for this seperate law, when copyright law should already protect their interests in preventing mass duplication and redistribution of illegal copies of movies shot in theaters? Especially when "most illegal copies were either duplicates of stolen copies or were shot from tripods in projection booths." Id.
Copyright is supposed to protect consumers as well. As Professor L. Ray Patterson explains: "The copyright owner, by reason of the Copyright Act and the copyright clause, has not only no right to interfere, but a duty not to interfere with the consumer's use of a publicly disseminated work."
