Peter Jaszi in “Is There Such a
Thing as Postmodern Copyright?” looks back at a 1992 essay he wrote where he
discussed the Rogers Vs. Koons court
case to look at how copyright views have changed, again using a Koons case as
one of his examples. In his 1992 article, Jaszi articulated the reason Koons
lost his case was because he wasn’t seen as an author, but looking back Jaszi
feels that this isn’t the case as much as views on copyright have changed. For instance, in the second case (Koons v. Blanche) Koons now uses the
defense that the way he uses images are “transformative” in nature. Koons
paints himself as an “interpreter and repurposer of existing content” (419).
Jazsi articulates how it was through these arguments that Koons won his second
case. And though it may be easy to argue this happened because of a postmodern
view of copyright, Jazsi feels that copyright isn’t old enough to be labeled
postmodern and furthermore our culture has changed in how it views the “romantic
author.”
My first experience with the notion
of copyright occurred because of the Livejournal blogging community. When
Livejournal first started, it was a site that many writers and visual artists
used to post their work (late 90s, early 2000s). I remember one instance where
a LJ “friend” wrote about how we all needed to make our posts private as she
had found out a high school student had “stolen” a few photos she had taken and
“repurposed” them for a class project (she obviously did not use the word
repurposed.) I remember her also discussing how we all should copyright our
works to make sure our art was protected. (As a high school student, I felt
this was incredibly unrealistic for me, much less not particularly worth it.
Now I realize that Livejournal itself may have had some fine print about
postings made to their site, just like how Facebook today does.)
At first, I was with the angry poster. How awful to steal something from someone and not give credit. But when I thought about it more, I felt a bit differently. For one, I like art in part because art can be
shared and repurposed, like Any Warhol did and like Girl Talk does now. (I
think most people know where things come from and if they don’t they will
eventually find out. Plus, that “original” art was probably repurposed from
somebody else. At the same time, I also find it hard to leave the romantic
author notion where credit should be given where it is due.) Secondly, I kind
of commended the high school student for going to LJ to
find a piece of work he or she could use since I felt there were some talented
individuals there. It certainly was a smarter thing to do considering the
situation. I also wondered how this artist had found out about her work being
“stolen” as she never explained it to us. She just wrote a rant about ownership
and art and accused some nameless high school student of “stealing from her.” (I
admit that I felt bad for that student. I certainly wouldn't have felt so great after reading that if I were the student who had "stolen" the photos from her.)
I think that it is a positive thing
that we are having discussions about copyright and authorship, especially
considering the internet. I remember liking the internet immediately because of
the sharing aspect of it and the fact I could talk to people without having to
go outside and talk with them. (I was very shy.) At the same time, it is hard
for me, as a writer, to leave that author construct behind because even though
I know I repurpose and transform my work from other models, I am also the one
who sits down to write.
Questions:
1.
When did you first learn about copyright and
what did it mean to you at the time? Basically, how did you understand it?
2.
Do you think there are other reasons why Koons
won the second case that Jaszi discusses?
No comments:
Post a Comment