On 06/10/11 22:10, Dennis Moser wrote:
> copyright is only ONE possible answer to the question —
Yes, hence my use of "a" rather than "the".
The kinds of objects that free speech applies to are not determined by
the First Amendment to the US Constitution or by the ECHR. And Article
10 of the ECHR allows for restrictions on free expression to respect the
rights of others:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights
Fortunately Article 10 has turned out to be stronger than I feared:
http://www.cphpost.dk/culture/culture/122-culture/51570-artist-wins-suit-against-fashion-icon.html
I mentioned censorship as a function of copyright. Freedom of speech,
rather than Free Software-inspired freedom of use, is the correct
measure of artistic freedom. Measures to protect the former against
copyright work well to protect the latter against copyright as well. So
freedom of speech/expression is the root of my support for the free
software-inspired use of copyleft in art.
> With performance art, in particular, the issues can get complicated
> pretty quickly.
Do you have any examples of this? My experience is that people just need
to better understand what "fixed in a tangible form of expression" means.
- Rob.
|