There’s so much to write about for this week so I guess I’ll start with the one-shot. Even though it was raining this Saturday I think the shoot was extremely successful. Everyone’s films turned out great, and because of the rain, we had to be more creative with our filming. In fact, I really don’t think our group would have used any umbrellas had there not been rain, which ended up being a large part of our film. Everyone seemed stoked to be there and ready to help out, so things went a lot faster and smoother than things could have gone.
As for The Rights on the Molotov Man, it’s hard to choose any one side on the matter. I feel for Susan, who took the photograph herself. She made the effort, went to Nicaragua, put herself in danger, and she deserves to be compensated for her work. Yes, I understand Joy’s query: “Does the author of a documentary photograph—a document whose mission is, in part, to provide the public with a record of events of social and historical value—have the right to control the content of this document for all time?” But a photograph is a photograph and a photographer is a photographer and whether it is a guerilla fighter in South America or a child walking down a street in Oklahoma, that photographer still took that picture and it is their art. That photograph is Susan’s art and she has rights over it’s content. On the other hand, Joy’s painting falls under a sort of “found footage” category. The picture was altered and on the Internet as part of a public domain. In a sense, by releasing the photograph to be altered, I really don’t see how she has any major rights over what happens to it. BUT what if the photograph was an old book? Say Joy comes across its manuscript online, reads it, and bases a screenplay off of it. Susan would have every right to sue, demand royalties, creative control, etc. I realize the question posed is whether or not a person or group of people have the right to control the Molotov man’s struggle, but I think this is a much simpler idea than that. Susan owns the rights to the photograph and how it is used in that context, but Joy isn’t using Susan’s photograph in her art show, she’s presenting a painting depicting a man with a struggle, not a particular person in a specific setting. He was taken out of the original context and put into a new one, creating a new atmosphere with new ideas and representations.
I thought The Ecstasy of Influence was interesting as well. It’s outstanding the amount of “plagiarism” that is out there. I can’t say I was that surprised to hear that Bob Dylan borrowed from an array of writers before his time. I liked the quote, “Dylan’s art offers a paradox: while it famously urges us not to look back, it also encodes a knowledge of past sources that might otherwise have little home in contemporary culture.” Lethem goes on to describe that some of Dylan’s lyrics came from poetry written by Henry Timrod during the Civil War. I feel that although this might technically be considered plagiarism, that poetry was written so long ago that I have to pose the question, is Timrod’s claim on it even valid any longer? I also thought Lethem had a good point in comparing his written work, which he can sell to pay his rent, but at the same time can voice the same knowledge and because it’s on the radio or just simply out into the air, it’s free.
No comments:
Post a Comment