Someone has been visiting the site (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter mjp
- Start date
bospress.net
www.bospress.net
I, for one, find it offensive that people troll the internet looking for images to steal and try to turn a buck. mjp owns the copyright on those images as they were removed from the site. Of course, the book owners probably own the copyright to the artwork itself and Linda owns the copyright to the likeness. They are violating so many copyrights and are just plain stealing for a few bucks.
But that is just me.
If I had a shill account, or two, i may consider running it up to thousands....
Bill
But that is just me.
If I had a shill account, or two, i may consider running it up to thousands....
Bill
Some people have no shame.
bospress.net
www.bospress.net
I guess what annoys me more than the stealing is the stealing anything that they think can sell. They do not seem to be a fan of Bukowski's. They probably only heard it in a some by Modest Mouse and did a Google search to find images to steal.
I've said it before... These are the same people that put Ted Bundy or Albert Fish on t-Shirts. Clothing for the rebelliousness PoMo posers out there to shock old(er) people.
It is much more fun to shock with something that was not manufactured for posers by posers....
Bill
I've said it before... These are the same people that put Ted Bundy or Albert Fish on t-Shirts. Clothing for the rebelliousness PoMo posers out there to shock old(er) people.
It is much more fun to shock with something that was not manufactured for posers by posers....
Bill
Who Owns The Rights? Most Likely Not Them
My two cents on who owns the rights.
When an artist creates a piece, he/she owns the rights to said piece. Once purchased, the artist still retains the rights, unless otherwise specified "” even though a collector owns the original.
Upon death, the estate or whomever the artist bequeathed the rights to owns the rights.
Here's one catch with this work, that could be interesting. If a piece of art is created as work for hire, in other words, somebody paid the artist to do the work, the lines get blurred, and may be owned by the party who hired the artist; depending upon what deal was struck between artist and employer/buyer.
So, Black Sparrow, or whomever owns the rights to those titles/pieces now (Ecco?), may be the owner of the rights. Or, the estate, Mrs. Bukowski, etc.
Hope that makes sense.
Either way, these people most likely don't own/have the right(s), and are probably crooks.
Pax
My two cents on who owns the rights.
When an artist creates a piece, he/she owns the rights to said piece. Once purchased, the artist still retains the rights, unless otherwise specified "” even though a collector owns the original.
Upon death, the estate or whomever the artist bequeathed the rights to owns the rights.
Here's one catch with this work, that could be interesting. If a piece of art is created as work for hire, in other words, somebody paid the artist to do the work, the lines get blurred, and may be owned by the party who hired the artist; depending upon what deal was struck between artist and employer/buyer.
So, Black Sparrow, or whomever owns the rights to those titles/pieces now (Ecco?), may be the owner of the rights. Or, the estate, Mrs. Bukowski, etc.
Hope that makes sense.
Either way, these people most likely don't own/have the right(s), and are probably crooks.
Pax
Last edited by a moderator:
bospress.net
www.bospress.net
Albert Fish is one of those stories that really disturbs me.
Not someone that I would put on a shirt.
Bill
I'm going to make a batch of Stanley Fish T-Shirts. I think they'll sell pretty well.
mjp
Founding member
Funny, I just realized that I own two of the nine (s)he picked. One of us has good taste, anyway.
But you can't get too wound up over "theft" on the web. If that was your art, yeah, then get wound up. But it's unlikely anyone from the Bukowski camp is going to take any action against something that penny ante.
People steal from each other on the web. It's almost traditional, if something this young can have traditions. It's a pain in the ass, and sometimes impossible, to protect your work. It's one of the drawbacks and advantages of a huge network like this.
But you can't get too wound up over "theft" on the web. If that was your art, yeah, then get wound up. But it's unlikely anyone from the Bukowski camp is going to take any action against something that penny ante.
People steal from each other on the web. It's almost traditional, if something this young can have traditions. It's a pain in the ass, and sometimes impossible, to protect your work. It's one of the drawbacks and advantages of a huge network like this.
^
I rarely post new works of art on my site for the reason you mentioned. I do, however, post some of my new works on facebook, as I somewhat have control; and have clients/collectors there, along with friends. It's a bit more manageable, but not totally.
And this Al Gore invention :eek: is yes, still in its infancy. And the rules won't be sorted out for a long, long time. (Napster now sold at Best Buy; that's rich.)
Some of my buds use my work as screensavers, for post cards, calendars, and other silly one-time things...without asking (they tell me later) "” and it's flattering. I don't get a hard-on over it. I'm cool with that.
But selling and making money from an artist's original work "” any artist in any medium, methinks, is when the bridge collapses. For private use only = fine.
(And to your point about something this young having a tradition; good observation. This may be a slant interpretation relative to what you're saying, but think about all those folks who call things, "The First Annual _________." That always cracks me up.)
I rarely post new works of art on my site for the reason you mentioned. I do, however, post some of my new works on facebook, as I somewhat have control; and have clients/collectors there, along with friends. It's a bit more manageable, but not totally.
And this Al Gore invention :eek: is yes, still in its infancy. And the rules won't be sorted out for a long, long time. (Napster now sold at Best Buy; that's rich.)
Some of my buds use my work as screensavers, for post cards, calendars, and other silly one-time things...without asking (they tell me later) "” and it's flattering. I don't get a hard-on over it. I'm cool with that.
But selling and making money from an artist's original work "” any artist in any medium, methinks, is when the bridge collapses. For private use only = fine.
(And to your point about something this young having a tradition; good observation. This may be a slant interpretation relative to what you're saying, but think about all those folks who call things, "The First Annual _________." That always cracks me up.)
Last edited by a moderator:
