[Baren]: The mailing list / discussion forum for woodblock printmaking.

Baren Digest             Saturday, 17 October 1998     Volume 05 : Number 315

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Graham Scholes <gscholes@islandnet.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 08:39:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Baren 1889] Re: copyrights ... 

Dave wrote....

>to your children ... your grandchildren ... your greatgrandchildren ...
>your greatgreatgrandchildren ...  ?  Where do we draw the line?

Two generations would be good.

70 years to a young person is  ... for ever and ever and ever..... to me it is
only 4 years longer than me. (or is that I).

>If this was the case, then _every_ word that has ever been written and
>_every_ image that has ever been created would still be owned by
>somebody, and we would have to pay for using it.

Only if the new user wants to profit.

>It _must_ serve both interests.  Putting an
>expiry date on copyrights allows this to happen.

There is now.....  70 years

>For myself, I would be happy if copyright was simply for the life of the
>creator.

What about the spouse. He/she is indirectly a part of any creation. Now
that is a whole topic of its own.  We won't go there.
Quite ofter for the little guy, the returns are peanuts. i.e. my book has seen
about $6000.00 royalties in 10 years....thats $600.00 a year......$50.00 a
month .....$1.64 a day.  Oh I know, there are residual's that are hard to equate.

> Items that have fallen out of copyright into the public domain are going
>'to be pulled back in. I am going to have to yank some of those books
>out of the Encyclopedia.

As I pointed out in my first posting if it is not for profit then one can
use the material.  Since the encyclopedia is not for profit I doubt you
will have to delete anything.

>To whose benefit?  ,,,,,,,,THE ORIGINATOR.
>To whose injury?  ,,,,,,,,,,No one, as the material is available for
>personal use.  and not for profit use.

Graham

------------------------------

From: Bill Ritchie <ritchie@emeralda.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 09:32:05 -0700
Subject: [Baren 1890] Copyrights in the cyber-age 

Why do I get that icky feeling we're the tail getting wagged by the dog and
perhaps we're not even part of the dog at all?

What I mean is, here we are doing things I only dreamed would be possible a
mere 20 years ago. I shared those visions with my students. One of them--C.
T. Chew--and I talked about the day when we could send pictures to people
at great distances in time and space with computers.

We had a great time, role-playing that scenario. We never thought about
copyright issues.

It was a printmaker, was it not, who got the first legislation through
Parliament regarding copyrights? I think that about dates the validity of
putting the controls of content in the hands of authorities.

I don't know if I can put this into words, but I think we have a leg in the
past and leg in the future. Our sovereignty as creative artists, crafts
people and designers seems to rest not on passing laws (that are
enforceable only at considerable expense most of which attorneys win) but
on disintegration of print-based property claims.

I think a new economics is developing concurrent with the new technologies.
Again, I don't know if I can scientifically define it, but it's based on
time and timing, chance and serendipity. I know this sounds dicey and off
the wall, but . . . 

Oh darn. My time's up!

- - Bill

------------------------------

From: Marco Flavio <mmflavio@slip.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 12:10:00 -0800
Subject: [Baren 1891] Re: Oliver Statler's book 

Hello,
I was looking by ISBN and title about the book Daver S was talking about
but it is not in print in the U.S. anymore.
Does anybody know a different version of the title or where to get it?
Thanks,

Marco Flavio Marinucci

------------------------------

From: Graham Scholes <gscholes@islandnet.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 15:02:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Baren 1892] Re: Copyrights in the cyber-age 

Bill wrote.......
>It was a printmaker, was it not, who got the first legislation through
>Parliament regarding copyrights? I think that about dates the validity of
>putting the controls of content in the hands of authorities.
>
>I Our sovereignty as creative artists, crafts
>people and designers seems to rest not on passing laws (that are
>enforceable only at considerable expense most of which attorneys win) but
>on disintegration of print-based property claims.

>Oh darn. My time's up!

Bill,

Time well spent and nicely put.  Thanks.

Back to printing for this little guy.

Graham

------------------------------

From: David Bull <davebull@woodblock.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 07:58:11 +0900
Subject: [Baren 1893] Re: Oliver Statler's book 

Marco wrote, re Oliver Statler's book:

> Does anybody know a different version of the title or where to get it?

Head over to 

http://www.mxbf.com/

and type in just the author's first and last names.

I just tried it, and the search returned over 30 copies for sale,
ranging from 150$ for a first edition with a tipped-in print, down to
12$ for a recent paperback edition.

Dave B.

------------------------------

From: Marco Flavio <mmflavio@slip.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 17:24:19 -0800
Subject: [Baren 1894] Re: Oliver Statler's book 

Thank you much.
Marco Flavio

------------------------------

From: David Bull <davebull@woodblock.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 13:54:23 +0900
Subject: [Baren 1895] One-Point Lesson ... 

Here is this week's 'One-point' lesson 

(contributed by Bill Ritchie)

********** ********** **********

(#27)  Selling reproductions of your art ...

Someone asked:  "Is it helpful or harmful to have postcards, letterheads,
reproduction prints, etc. made from your original art?  This might help
become more recognized, but may harm sales of the originals."

This is a helpful/harmful kind of question that may be answerable by
storytelling. One time I met an artist who was passing through town. He
introduced himself and I said, "Oh, yeah, I think I saw your work
reproduced in a catalog, didn't I?"

He told me, "You know, that reproduction has opened more doors for me
than you can imagine!" As it turned out, it was a black and white print
and it reproduced easily and well. He had achieved what they call "brand 
recognition."

Another artist whose works look like photographs is very well known
because, not only are his images fascinating, surrealistic images of dreamy
settings, they look at home in mass reproduction.

So my opinion is that it can be helpful. It can be harmful if the work
looks awful in reproduction. One thing to avoid is black and white
reproductions of color images. Ugh!  Another is scale - a small reproduction
of an image that is large, or the other way around.

If you control the reproduction, such as in a postcard, business card,
letterhead or boxed set, it is less likely to harm your name. Sure, a few
people may frame your reproductions, but they probably couldn't afford to
buy your originals anyway.

And the best part is they may become loyal supporters. If they put your
image on their wall, or stick it on your refrigerator door, other people
will see it. Is that bad? One person I know has selected images made into
cloisonne pins which he sends out as holiday gifts. No harm there.

********** ********** **********

Next week -   ... Pass the tissues, please ...

These 'One-point' lessons are being collected into a section in the
[Baren] Encyclopedia of Woodblock Printmaking.
http://www.woodblock.com/encyclopedia/updates.html

Contributions from experienced printmakers for future 'One-pointers' 
are eagerly solicited.

------------------------------

End of Baren Digest V5 #315
***************************