Dada Buddhist Biker Punk (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} sfslim) wrote,@ 2008-10-09 16:53:00 |
|
An open letter to Jillian McDonald
Dear Ms. McDonald,
My name is Aaron Muszalski, and I am a San Francisco-based artist. I am also an Instructor at the San Francisco Academy of Art University, where I teach classes in digital compositing and visual effects. Prior to becoming an arts educator I worked at George Lucas' visual effects facility, Industrial Light + Magic.
I am writing to ask why it is that, nearly a week after having been contacted by the photographer whose work you used as the basis for your "Zombies In Condoland" project, you have yet to take any apparent action. As you have no doubt been informed, those photos were placed on flickr under a Creative Commons license which specified the following:
Creative Commons (CC) is a grassroots attempt to update copyright laws to better deal with the new types of usage, distribution and re-mixing that digital technology have made so accessible. Where traditional copyright defaults to refusal, eg. "I own this work completely, and no one else can use it in any way without my explicit permission," Creative Commons allows for nuance and openness, eg. "I own this work, but I'm happy to allow certain kinds of re-use provided certain conditions are met."
One important thing to note here is that the very act of placing a work under a CC license is an act of generosity; from a content creator's standpoint, it is far easier to simply assert copyright over one's work. The very fact that an artist has chosen to use Creative Commons serves as a sign that They Are Not The Enemy; they are not a faceless media conglomerate who "doesn't get it" when it comes to re-use. Rather, they are us, the content creators. Fellow artists, trying to find a sustainable middle path in an era of increasing conflict between corporations and advocates of open culture.
Such a brave choice deserves to be rewarded with consideration and respect.
In this case, that means respecting Mr. Beale's request of "No Derivative Works", something which your "Zombies In Condoland" images clearly are. The central elements of your composites are the photographed zombies themselves (instantly recognizable to any of us who participated in that event, and instantly recognizable as Scott's photographs) not the backgrounds that you've placed them over. And even if this were not the case - say, if you had used fewer pixels of Scott's photos, or processed them in some way as to be unrecognizable - you would still be in violation of Scott's "No Derivative Works" license. The lack of attribution (citing the original artists who created the images used in your composites) demonstrates a further lack of consideration on your part.
The irony of all this is that, knowing Scott, had you merely contacted him in advance and provided a brief description of your project, he almost certainly would have consented to having his images used (provided you gave proper attribution of course). It is also very likely that he would have promoted the results on his highly-ranked blog, Laughing Squid. Many items listed on Laughing Squid subsequently get picked up elsewhere, including on such uber-popular sites like Boing Boing. All of this would have been very beneficial for your work. That you did not choose to ask permission makes me wonder: are you inconsiderate, or merely naive, and somehow imbued with the attitude that, "just because I found it on the Internet, I can do anything I want with it"?
Please understand: I am a strong proponent of open culture and creative re-use, and a strong critic of the ongoing attempts to extend copyright and consolidate corporate ownership of our shared cultural heritage. But to architect a truly progressive solution - one that doesn't rely upon overpriced laywers and onerous legislation - we will have to embrace communication and consent between artists. In this case, Scott did not grant such consent, and you should respect that.
I hope that you will truly consider what I've suggested, and promptly revise your "Zombies In Condoland" series so as to remove all of the images you took from Scott's photographs.
Sincerely,
Aaron Muszalski
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The LJ post that brought this to my attention: http://rubin110.livejournal.com/511433.h
Scott's original tweet on the subject: http://twitter.com/laughingsquid/statuse
Ongoing discussion of the issue on Scott's FriendFeed: http://friendfeed.com/e/8cc22e08-6d41-7a
Jillian McDonald's website: http://www.jillianmcdonald.net/
Dear Ms. McDonald,
My name is Aaron Muszalski, and I am a San Francisco-based artist. I am also an Instructor at the San Francisco Academy of Art University, where I teach classes in digital compositing and visual effects. Prior to becoming an arts educator I worked at George Lucas' visual effects facility, Industrial Light + Magic.
I am writing to ask why it is that, nearly a week after having been contacted by the photographer whose work you used as the basis for your "Zombies In Condoland" project, you have yet to take any apparent action. As you have no doubt been informed, those photos were placed on flickr under a Creative Commons license which specified the following:
Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes.
No Derivative Works. You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.
Creative Commons (CC) is a grassroots attempt to update copyright laws to better deal with the new types of usage, distribution and re-mixing that digital technology have made so accessible. Where traditional copyright defaults to refusal, eg. "I own this work completely, and no one else can use it in any way without my explicit permission," Creative Commons allows for nuance and openness, eg. "I own this work, but I'm happy to allow certain kinds of re-use provided certain conditions are met."
One important thing to note here is that the very act of placing a work under a CC license is an act of generosity; from a content creator's standpoint, it is far easier to simply assert copyright over one's work. The very fact that an artist has chosen to use Creative Commons serves as a sign that They Are Not The Enemy; they are not a faceless media conglomerate who "doesn't get it" when it comes to re-use. Rather, they are us, the content creators. Fellow artists, trying to find a sustainable middle path in an era of increasing conflict between corporations and advocates of open culture.
Such a brave choice deserves to be rewarded with consideration and respect.
In this case, that means respecting Mr. Beale's request of "No Derivative Works", something which your "Zombies In Condoland" images clearly are. The central elements of your composites are the photographed zombies themselves (instantly recognizable to any of us who participated in that event, and instantly recognizable as Scott's photographs) not the backgrounds that you've placed them over. And even if this were not the case - say, if you had used fewer pixels of Scott's photos, or processed them in some way as to be unrecognizable - you would still be in violation of Scott's "No Derivative Works" license. The lack of attribution (citing the original artists who created the images used in your composites) demonstrates a further lack of consideration on your part.
The irony of all this is that, knowing Scott, had you merely contacted him in advance and provided a brief description of your project, he almost certainly would have consented to having his images used (provided you gave proper attribution of course). It is also very likely that he would have promoted the results on his highly-ranked blog, Laughing Squid. Many items listed on Laughing Squid subsequently get picked up elsewhere, including on such uber-popular sites like Boing Boing. All of this would have been very beneficial for your work. That you did not choose to ask permission makes me wonder: are you inconsiderate, or merely naive, and somehow imbued with the attitude that, "just because I found it on the Internet, I can do anything I want with it"?
Please understand: I am a strong proponent of open culture and creative re-use, and a strong critic of the ongoing attempts to extend copyright and consolidate corporate ownership of our shared cultural heritage. But to architect a truly progressive solution - one that doesn't rely upon overpriced laywers and onerous legislation - we will have to embrace communication and consent between artists. In this case, Scott did not grant such consent, and you should respect that.
I hope that you will truly consider what I've suggested, and promptly revise your "Zombies In Condoland" series so as to remove all of the images you took from Scott's photographs.
Sincerely,
Aaron Muszalski
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The LJ post that brought this to my attention: http://rubin110.livejournal.com/511433.h
Scott's original tweet on the subject: http://twitter.com/laughingsquid/statuse
Ongoing discussion of the issue on Scott's FriendFeed: http://friendfeed.com/e/8cc22e08-6d41-7a
Jillian McDonald's website: http://www.jillianmcdonald.net/
