On Mon, 23 Mar 1998, Ira Lightman wrote:
> I'm thinking of extending my current collage
> practice (of using words from other texts in
> new orders) and using whole sentences in collage...
> When you get
> nicked for it, guvnor?
Ira, Copyright legislation is designed to keep lawyers busy and is
therefore seldom clear. Also, it often appears insensitive to the
requirements of pomo referential method. Phrases like "significant part"
arise, where "significant" can be defined by the original copyright owner.
The example always given is Beethoven's 5th, opening of, where DaDaDaDaaa
is a statistically small part of the whole, but, recognisably significant.
As Copyright Adviser I'd advise caution... On the other hand, since most
of us, to some extent, use the magpie method in some form or other, and
very few of us get sued for it, it's evident that there are other
considerations, not least (a) proportion: if you nick a phrase from each
of 120 writers you're less nickable than if you nick 120 phrases from a
single writer (b) recognisability: by the time you've finished pulling and
pushing it its own mother/father couldn't recognise it, still less a
copyright lawyer (c) reference: if you acknowledge your plural sources, in
the manner of a critical acknowledgement, it's more ok (if you're quoting
really big bits you have to get permission for this) and (d) intent: to
nick you, they'd have to show a degree of intent to defraud the original
copyright owner.
I hope that's clear. See you in court, along with other members of this
list.
RC
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|