View Publication - PolicyArchive

that painting is all about quoting, referencing,copying. And I have my precedents in thecontemporary art world, painters who usephotography. So we I said I would not sign theform giving her rights to my work, because Ihave something to protect as well. 124 And infact, that’s when I began to get mad, instead offeeling like maybe I’d done something wrong.We sent out this letter, and discussion is stillraging on Rhizome.“A few days later I get a 12-page veryaggressive response from the lawyer saying thatinstead of waiving their licensing fee, now Ihave to pay $2,000. And that there was all thiscaselaw, as though she’d cut and pasted fromCopyright 101. It didn’t make any sense, and Ididn’t think it related to what I had done. Butit was incredibly intimidating and my lawyeragreed. He was surprised that we got that kindof response because our letter was very politeand reasonable, and it was an apology. 125“Now I believe that the whole thing was justa scare tactic to get me to take the stuff off theWeb. And it worked. I called my lawyer and saidI was taking my images off the Web site becauseI didn’t want them to go to my Internet provider.I didn’t want my Web site pulled. This is whatI was really afraid of, because I use that site tosend images to galleries, to writers, to critics.“But here’s the punch line. Seconds before Itook the images off, people on Rhizome grabbedmy images in solidarity. They uploaded my pagesto their Web sites; then one of these artists takesmy painting and flips it. He puts it up on his site,and now it’s a derivative work based on my work.And everyone started making digital collagebased on the Molotov image. It all turned intoprotest art. For the next five months, this imagewent global. So there are a couple of morals tothis story. The idea that you can control what’sgoing on right now in the digital realm with theolder paradigm of copyright control is gone.The ideas of the new technology are part of ourculture whether or not we’re aware of it.” 126At the end of this story, Talbot remarked: “Itseems to me you’ve created a wonderful situation,because I can only imagine her trying to pay herlawyer to send the same kind of letters to thosethousands of people. She could never have doneit. So you took it out of your personal role andmade it a worldwide thing, and you’ve coveredyour behind.”Joy Garnett, “Molotov”Garnett replied, “Well, they did it for me. Itwas nice. But it was not about me. It was aboutthe issue.”Publishing is another area fraught withdifficulty for these scholars and artists. FrimaFox Hofrichter, an author of art books, said thatwhen she has needed images, she has alwayssought permission, unless the publisher tookcare of it. Years ago, when she was writing abouta then little-known 17th century artist, JudithLeyster, two collectors denied permission toreproduce specific works, “and I did not usethem,” even though “other art historians said Icould have used them.”What made her decide not to?“Because I asked. And I thought once I asked,then I was obligated to follow what they said,which is why people don’t want to ask.” 127To this, Talbot replied: “One of my reasonsfor not asking is that I sell little collages for $400,which may have 30 images in them. I don’t maketime to go asking questions for something whichsells for $400. Sometimes I get only $200. If I’mBrennan Center for Justice 23