...
| Panel |
|---|
Jacqueline Park |
| Panel |
|---|
Tadd Phillips |
| Panel |
|---|
Khrystyne Wilson In modern times copyright laws are taken for granted as something so obvious and menial it can often be ignored, for example the contemporary problem of pirating music and films. The pirating warnings shown in movie theater previews is something often mocked. I am quite confident that if asked, almost one hundred percent of the students at Cornell, or any other university would say that have at one point downloaded a copy of a movie, or song for free. Although this idea of illegal copying may seem like an issue only brought about by current technological inventions, we can see that the artist William Hogarth struggled against the same problems contemporary music and film stars do. In Eighteenth Century Britain, Hogarth was an artist who produced artwork based on commissions requested by royals and aristocrats, as well as art depicting contemporary themes, such as the highly publicized murders by Sarah Malcolm, and the taxation of alcohol in the Gin Act of 1736. Through his precision and talent in multiple art forms, such as etchings, engravings and paintings, and the subject matter he depicted, Hogarth found himself with a large following. Due to these highly publicized pieces, Hogarth began to charge subscribers a decent amount of money for his original paintings, which many of his poorer fans, could not afford to pay. By charging a guinea each for one of his original works of art, Hogarth limited his potential buyers to only those who could afford these prices, thereby leaving out his poorer audience. Because of this, many merchants realized the potential payoff they could receive by selling copies of his work, made by amateur artists, at a fraction of his original cost. Back in the late 1700's, artists were less equip to handle this type of forgery, thus there was little way to determine whether a piece of art was a very good copy, or the original, and why pay ten times as much for an original, when no one could tell the difference? This, coupled with the fact that merchants were also selling copies that were very poorly made, thus debilitating Hogarth's fame in the art world, caused him to petition Parliament to create a law by which the artists were protected from this problem of copying. Hogarth mirrored his proposal for a copyright law after one that was already in place for authors. Parliament passed the law stating that no copies were allowed to be made of an author's original piece for 14 years after the artwork was made, and anyone found to be making copies would be punished by law. This, in theory seemed like a good plan, except for the fact that copiers could, after 14 years, begin to sell copies again. Also, this law posed a problem for Hogarth. As the law was announced to begin in a few weeks, Hogarth decided to save publishing his newest pieces until after the law was in place. This did not stop some crafty copiers, who would sneak into his studio and try to memorize his works, in order to paint copies of them to sell before the pieces even came out. Needless to say, these copies were not exact replicas. It is interesting, and somewhat upsetting to see that the same issues that plagued artists in the 1700's are still relevant today. We still have not come up with a way to stomp out piracy of art, as it continually takes a new form with new inventions. Although copyright laws now, for the most part, protect artists creating tangible artwork, such as paintings, musicians, and film actors are struggling to find a way to end piracy of their work. Krystyne Wilson |
| Panel |
|---|
Nicholas Kristov Getting full and deserving credit for work is of major concern to artists of all mediums. Art is a difficult profession to make a living and the credit and reward (payment for pieces) should go, at least in part, to the original artist. The Hogath act aimed to bring an artist version of the literary copyright act of 1708 to the physical art world. In a pamphlet used to introduce the Hogarth act, the purpose of protecting works was stated, " for when everyone is secure of the Fruits of his own Labour, the Number of Artists will be every Day increasing." One aspect of the law is to help the artists gain credit and recognition for their work, however the other benefits society. If artists and creators feel that they will receive full credit for their work, they will produce more for the general public, not just for a few trusted buyers. Hogarth had major issues with copies, often within two weeks of production of a piece there ware unauthorized copies and reproductions. This drove him to develop a subscription process, cutting out the middleman distributer and assuring people who bought into the subscription that the work done was both credible and original. Part of the problem is that many of the works that Hogarth did were etchings. "Southwark Fair" (below)shows incredible attention to detail. However, etching prints are themselves copies of the original piece, and so unauthorized printing, or creating a copied etching plate can easily done. To this day there are still problems with copyright law and intellectual property. Fake art is constantly discovered, and letters of authenticity are all that can prove to a buyer that the piece is legitimate and original. The most obvious example in the current market is music and the ease of people to copy work almost immediately. This pushes artists to release their work in new and inventive ways, rewarding loyal fans for actually giving them credit. However one interesting contrast to this is the movie and music industry which seems to have a stranglehold on copyrights even after the death of the artist or director/producers. While in some ways it gives the works' producers the rights to credit for their work, at a certain point it makes sense to limit the copyright period and make the art available for the general public. One question I have regarding copyright law is the use of sampling others' work to create new work. As I understand, work can be marketed as the artist's own, even if it incorporates other work, as long as there is a material change. Often in contemporary art, other's work is changed to make a statement, however no credit is given to the other artists. Should there be some credit for the original work if it gives inspiration? |
...