I saw this art work at village idiot savant and I was very impressed. However I see pictures all the time on the web and I can snap images all day long and post them as copyrighted art. I am not so sure that it makes one bit of difference in the case of those things as it is like street performers having a copyright shirt on as they sing for cash. It is the value of the work as determined by society and that is not monolithic. I would not pay for the Mona Lisa as I think it is a work from the past and is about as relevant to the present as cave drawings. In a time when it cost money to have an image made it might have made sense to try and control the images. Now it is a dime a gigabyte to duplicate something.
I think that people who produce good work should be supported and rewarded. Those who use the law to bully others into paying for something that is as easy to make as a fart, represent the problem with governments and the institutionalization of "advantage" to a class.
I am testing SSS ( sub surface scattering ) , grease pencil to outline export to SVG and re-import, library includes, relative paths, translucency effects, standard materials for insect modeling, make human mods for make ant.... If I create an ant image from a model that precisely represents a picture that somebody took when viewed at the right angle in the right light, have I violated their copyright? Do they actually have the right to restrict the production of images through other means? It is a mess for sure, copyright and patent law is just a way for governments to control, rich to get richer, and lawyers to get rich, most of all. As it has been said, if you want to be free, first KATL, and I won't tell you what the acronym stands for. I'll give you a hint, it has nothing to do with Atlanta or Montana.
0 comments:
Post a Comment