The other day the topic of body art came up into a conversation that I was having. While this topic isn't really unusual for me to discuss with people, this time I was thinking about it in a rather different way.
This discussion revolved around a tattoo artist's right to their own work. If an illustrator can draw an image and, if he so chooses, get that image copyrighted, can a tattoo artist do the same? Even though an illustrator works on paper and a tattoo artist works on a body does that matter? Does the canvas make a difference?
Now, I haven't done any research on the topic, so perhaps a tattoo artist can copyright their work. But if they infact can not I think that is ridiculous. Every artist has the right to their own work if that is what they desire. (Yes, I know that last sentence seems to go against my views of 'world property', but not everyone has the weird hippie ideals that I do.)
But even though I do not believe in the idea of personal property I find the whole concept behind the copyright process interesting. So, if the mood strikes I'll do a little research.
Showing posts with label intellectual property. Show all posts
Showing posts with label intellectual property. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Friday, December 17, 2010
Intellectual Property.
I do believe that I somehow missed posting a blog one week, so I've decided to write a little about my opinion on the concept of intellectual property.
This is far from the first time that I've thought about the idea because, as an artist, this matter is of considerable importance. It was brought to my attention again though when our class began to watch Nina Paley's film, Sita Sings the Blues. As an artist, it is only logical that Paley would have some kind of opinion on the subject, but over the years she has become a rather strong voice in the many debates regarding the ownership of one's intellectual products. On her blog, Paley makes her opinion known and quotes many famous people to back up her point.
From what I've read, it seems like Paley is very strongly opposed to the concept of intellectual property because, "It transfers ownership of the contents of your mind to others... gives alien, private owners title to our minds." While I believe that Paley's opinion is well thought out and entirely valid, I have a very different opinion.
It is not that I disagree with Paley, because that is not the case. It is the fact that I do not believe in the concept of property at all, let alone intellectual property. Who decided that people needed to claim things as their own personal property? Who came up with the concept that something can be yours and belong to no one else? In our society today people go to work, earn money, and then turn around and use that money to purchase things in order to gain more property. What I don't understand is how simple little pieces of paper covered in ink can do to prove that any object belongs to one specific person.
This may seem like just another crazy idea, but I believe that the concept of property as a whole should not exist. And when it comes to products of the mind of an individual... yes, the idea or creation came from one individual person and should be attributed to them, but to have to purchase rights to be able to use that creation and build upon or interpret it should not even exist if property really does not exist at all.
This is far from the first time that I've thought about the idea because, as an artist, this matter is of considerable importance. It was brought to my attention again though when our class began to watch Nina Paley's film, Sita Sings the Blues. As an artist, it is only logical that Paley would have some kind of opinion on the subject, but over the years she has become a rather strong voice in the many debates regarding the ownership of one's intellectual products. On her blog, Paley makes her opinion known and quotes many famous people to back up her point.
From what I've read, it seems like Paley is very strongly opposed to the concept of intellectual property because, "It transfers ownership of the contents of your mind to others... gives alien, private owners title to our minds." While I believe that Paley's opinion is well thought out and entirely valid, I have a very different opinion.
It is not that I disagree with Paley, because that is not the case. It is the fact that I do not believe in the concept of property at all, let alone intellectual property. Who decided that people needed to claim things as their own personal property? Who came up with the concept that something can be yours and belong to no one else? In our society today people go to work, earn money, and then turn around and use that money to purchase things in order to gain more property. What I don't understand is how simple little pieces of paper covered in ink can do to prove that any object belongs to one specific person.
This may seem like just another crazy idea, but I believe that the concept of property as a whole should not exist. And when it comes to products of the mind of an individual... yes, the idea or creation came from one individual person and should be attributed to them, but to have to purchase rights to be able to use that creation and build upon or interpret it should not even exist if property really does not exist at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)