i love how people like you, an artist who works in media that can't be replicated very easily (last I knew, you were in metal working), can be so cavaliar about the rest of us who don't -- and have to make a buck.
On Jan 14, 2008 10:10 PM, John Thornton <jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> bitch at pulpculture.org wrote:
> > so, th enext time you teach a course at the community college, you learn
> > that you must turn in your syll, your notes, your lectures, exams, and they
> > will tape you giving lectures.
> >
> > after that they say, sayanora fucker, we'll be using your stuff to teach
> > the course online. You get 2000 clams for the course, if you're lucky.
>
> I'm not so arrogant to imagine that I bring something so wonderful to
> teaching that it should be considered protected intellectual property.
> If the school wants to replace me with another teacher they are free to
> anytime.
> My agreement with the school is to teach. I am not contracted to provide
> them with written materials or manuals. I am paid to physically attend
> class and, using my accumulated knowledge and experience, try to pass on
> something of merit to my students with regards to a specific subject.
> If my job were to write a syllabus and lecture notes for the school I
> wouldn't be allowed to keep them, the school would already own them
> since they paid me to come up with it. They didn't pay me for my notes
> etc. so they don't belong to them. I'll freely give them a copy if they
> ask however.
>
> When I take on commissioned art work the person I work for gets
> everything if they want. If they want the notes, sketches, etc. they can
> have them. I'll keep a copy for myself if I deem them of value for me in
> the future. If they make copies of the work I don't care.
>
> If it's non-commissioned work I do of my own accord and them sell the
> same holds true. If someone takes one of the images I sold to them and
> copies it making thousands of dollars selling those copies I really
> don't care. I retain the right to use it but everything I do is to me
> put into the commons as it were.
>
> Everything I know about metal casting I'll share freely with anyone who
> asks. If I put it all on a website I would consider it all in the public
> domain regardless of any specific techniques I may have developed. The
> same goes for paintings, photographs, sculptures, whatever.
>
> Why should a cabinet maker have to physically build cabinets his entire
> life to derive an income stream but if I take a photograph that image
> should generate a perpetual income stream for me? Is photography so much
> harder or more important than cabinetry?
>
> How else could I possibly look at this issue since I have stated I am
> anti-copyright? I am well aware of the problems this can create for some
> artists since our society is already geared to remunerating in an unfair
> manner. That is why I am not hostile towards the writers strike but only
> that my support is extremely unenthusiastic.
>
>
> John Thornton
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>