If I was an artist I wouldn't want to risk my livelyhood on the assumption that nobody objected to what I did.
Piss Christs; naked statues; slaughtering a horse (in public) to protest the Vietnam war; putting ones shit in cans and sell those; etc are all things that artists have done that pisses people of.
Heck in the US you could be called an arse (or worse) if you salute the flag or if you don't.
They may still be able to legally ban them, political opinions (so long as they are not caused by a religious mandate) is not a protected class (though looking at how devided the US is, that maybe the end result), but given that a big target marked for your business is artists, why would you?
it would appear that they are attempting to hide behind free speech (creating an "artwork"). i'm certainly not a lawyer but this seems pretty transparent
There are a few of those discussions going on in artist's circles these days. I imagine they'll get sued for doing this, but it'll probably take a very famous artist or a hell of a class action suit to make it happen.
The kicker that amazes me is that when artists register their incredulity and their offense about this, the randos pile into their mentions asking why they won't work with the people misappropriating their work in this way.
I don't think the artists get a special role in creating copyright laws since effectively those laws are an abridgment of the freedom of speech. We can speak our minds on this issue without having to ask their permission.
Given the course of recent history (i.e. ever expanding copyright terms and regulation), I don't see that more consideration for artists is warranted.
They're fringe extremists who are nevertheless the appointed representatives of vast numbers of artists, producers, and heavily-monied interests.
We're a bunch of angry people.
I have no problem with people expressing the outrage of the situation in strong language.
(That being said, I too am an artist and sympathize with their plight. I wouldn't like some of you do away with copyright outright. But these laws as written are shackles and chains on our artists and culture as well.)
In that case the artist is protecting themselves from possible issues, much like Weird Al gets permission from everyone he parodies even though he doesn't have to.
These are the consequences of your own rhetoric. You are ignoring them for cheap shots to take the moral high ground. You can’t just say “I’m the side of artists” and conclude that you’re doing good. Your rule set is VERY WEAK and prone to abuse. It will not meaningfully protect artists at all.
As long as these works aren’t locked away. Feel free to not promote them publicly, but denying access to the works of immoral creatives is akin to burning books. Let the art stand on its own, especially if the creative is no longer alive.
reply