> As an artist I disagree. I can sell a painting but the "image" contained
> on the canvas is freely available for anyone to use. I didn't pull that
> image out of my mind with no help from the tens of thousands of painters
> before me and the techniques they pioneered. The entire structure of our
> society contributes to the images I create. Each one is a vision of
> something original (I hope) that is created be rearranging everything I
> see and hear in an interesting and pleasing way. There was a time when
> musicians did not own the music they created. It was acknowledged that
> the original composition owed it existence to all musicians who came
> before them. Copyright needs to go away as do patents. They inhibit the
> diffusion of knowledge and artistry.
Thank you. It's good to hear another artist explain how most artists borrow ideas and things from other artists. It's not like Little Richard invented his music out of a vacuum. He is indebted to generations of musicians of many different cultures.
> This does not mean however I condone plagiarism. When someone authors
> something they should be given "intellectual" credit for that
> composition. For someone else to claim authorship is clearly wrong but
> in a moral way not a legal way. I have made copies of paintings for many
> people but I have always clearly labeled the back of the canvas with the
> information concerning the original. The same should hold for music.
> When a musician plays a piece arranged by someone else they should make
> it clear that this particular arrangement was the vision of whomever
> composed it, nothing more.
Right. Copying a Disney DVD and selling the copy on a streetcorner is not plagiarism. Adding a wrapper that says that you produced Toy Story is plagiarism, or, at least providing false information.
Chuck0