Rodger Lemonde:
‘People who don’t appreciate “intellectual property”
often have none.’

http://sitasingstheblues.com

Sounds to me like she had better get to work and pay some bills.

Who’s the idiot to loan an artist 24mil anyway.

diamond:
‘The usual I don’t know anything about art and I’m proud of it crowd. Anyone who doesn’t understand what it means for an artist to lose copyright and control of their work should think about how they would feel if someone signed all their property over into another name and stole it.’

Artists used one another’s stuff for thousands of years before copyright existed and did just fine.  We got Homer, Virgil, Dante, Shakespeare, Michelangelo and Bach without the benefits of copyright.  Copyright as we know it would have severely inhibited most of them; Bach wove the popular music of his era into his cantatas, Shakespeare lifted histories and plots, and so on. In fact, artistic inspiration was originally supposed to have been given by the gods, so it didn’t belong to the artists anyway.  Today, if art work has any commercial value, it’s promptly taken off by whoever has the most numerous lawyers and deepest pockets.  That includes work which is effectively stolen from the people who actually made it, just as scientific work performed by indigenous peoples, especially with pharmaceuticals, is stolen by big corporations so the discoverers themselves can no longer use it.  Who actually owns a copyright may have little or nothing to do with who did the work.  Same as everything else.  It’s one area where Proudhon’s famous dictum is highly operative almost all the time.

The case of Annie Leibovitz is an excellent example of the procedure both coming and going.

When asked about this story, Average Americans were a bit confused. Many thought Ms. Leibovitz was the heir daughter of a Kosher Deli Dynasty.

Since Anarcissie and Virgina didn’t much like here work, I looked it up in an old magaizne.  The picture is by somebody else.  Not Liebowitz.

        Never mind.

The usual I don’t know anything about art and I’m proud of it crowd. Anyone who doesn’t understand what it means for an artist to lose copyright and control of their work should think about how they would feel if someone signed all their property over into another name and stole it. Anything is worthy of copyright if it’s someone’s artistic or intellectual property. It doesn’t depend on someone’s opinion of the work. The hatred and ignorance directed at artists of genius never changes, through the ages.

Copyright isn’t a matter of quality or just deserts.  It’s a matter of law.  Originally, it gave the possessors exclusive rights over the work for twenty-odd years.  Now, it has become absurd, at the behest of large corporations who have an important financial interest in such intellectual treasures as Micky Mouse—over a century these days, I believe, and counting.  For whoever has the most lawyers.  See http://questioncopyright.org for some of the goofier business.

To Rodger Lemonde who wrote:

“RAE every art work is worthy of copyright. That is an absolute.”

Well, I don’t know about the “absolute” part Rodger, but I do know that an “art work” may be a photograph but not every photograph is an “art work.” Judging what is or is not “art” is far beyond the ability of most lawmakers to define, and therefore beyond the laws they’ve written, in my opinion.

For example, the results from pointing one of today’s computerized, automatic cameras at a building and pressing the shutter are NOT ART in my opinion. It’s damned near in the same genre as a photocopy because that’s exactly what it is! If the law consider such stuff as “art” then truly, the law is an ass.

For something to be classified as “art” I would expect that (a) the “artist” be recognized in his/her field as possessing special talent so that,(b), whatever he or she produces is most often recognized by his/her peers as work above and beyond the ordinary.

I always found the publicity this photographer has received to be much greater than her work.

(guess what goes around, comes around)

I just read about this the other day, but can’t remember where or I would post the link.  Essentially, she squandered all her money.  She has zero financial sense and never spared any expense on her sets, her profiles or her personal life.

Hell, I’m still trying to figure out why the heck this is even posted as an article on this site.

I think Leibovitz is mainly famous for being famous and for sucking up to celebrities, along Andy Warhol lines but without Warhol’s genius or sense of humor.  Her work is (in my opinion) competent but undistinguished.  If you blow up photographs to six by eight feet, stick them in glossy rooms suspended from chromium poles, and intone “this is Art”, people will come and sigh, “Yes, this is indeed Art”—so, what else is new?

The business with Pizzetti seems utterly trivial, a squabble between two run-of-the-mill commercial artists over some Photoshopping.  The business about losing her work, though, may be very clever; it may well not be worth any 24 million dollars.  And New York City real estate is pretty questionable these days, too.

I never heard of Annie Leibovitz and I don’t really care about her life any more than she cares about mine. On the hook for a $24 million dollar loan? Never in my life have I ever been in the position to be eligible for a $24 million dollar loan. How could life be so cruel?

GK Chesterton wrote many years ago that:
“Journalism largely consists of saying ‘Lord Jones is Dead’ to people who never knew that Lord Jones was alive.”

Not much has changed since his time.

RAE every art work is worthy of copyright. That is an
absolute. The ease of copying in a digital age is
irrelevant.
Works for hire would be the best defense on this.
European views of copyright are more protective of
artists than here in the US. In US courts his rights
to compensation would depend on an actual filing of
copyright. A work that has not been registered
entitles the author to demand that the infringement
stop.
That said it is pretty sloppy of her to put herself
in this position.
Or is it? I would feel rather shrewd to get 24
million for my body of work. Beat the hell out of
flogging it all over trying to sell it. She doesn’t
even have to worry about printing and framing. Makes
you wonder who’s the dummy.

apparently liebowitz, like many artists, doesn’t have any sense.  Wonderful photographs though.

I like what she said once.  She said that for her the opposite of talking wasn’t listening.  It was waiting.

This is a bit of a tricky area.

If Annie PAID Pizzetti to “scout” locations then Pizzetti was WORKING FOR HER and the product of his work is HER PROPERTY. However, she may or may not be entitled to publish those photos for profit with no further reimbursement to Pizzetti. It all depends on what the terms of employment state and I’m sure that any photographer of Annie’s status would have all that legal stuff worked out before a shutter ever clicks.

But let’s face it… a photo of a building that can be found on a thousand post cards being used by Annie as a background isn’t exactly a work of art worthy of copyright.