Artforum (October, 2013) has an article by Ross Lipman on the restoration of Bruce Conner's film, Crossroads (1976). It's nice reading for aesthetic reasons, because it's all about decisions regarding digital transfers that get complicated by the artist's own reworking of the film, as well as those considerations having to do with how the experience of it today ought to resemble the experience of it when it was, in a sense, completed. Lipman would be good for those discussions having to do with the archival integrity of what we are getting. But when he says things like "the most fundamental sea change wrought by the so-called digital revolution is the loss of the singular work," he isn't opening the door to the equivalent of plagiarism.
I am becoming interested in the online teaching environment and recently learned that full-time faculty retain exclusive control over the content they develop in Computing and Digital Media, but adjunct faculty give up their rights (other than to use what they make) to the university. It's not exactly the problem facing artists who can so easily be subjected to duplication and upload without their consent. But there is a resemblance in that copyright law, as it exist and is enforced (and as it is revised) is almost beside the point. In previous teaching that included copyright questions I began to see copyright law as essentially a tool for commercial purposes. What we would want to protest as a form of theft (and without appealing to markets or who earns what from it) isn't really of concern in copyright law. Bernie Bernie
_______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list [email protected] https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
