This reading presents me with two interesting counter perspectives of artists towards the copyright law, and inspires me to ponder on the appropriate role and effect of the contemporary copyright law.
The issue discussed in this article originated from a painter creating a drawing based on an existing photography artwork. The painting, as described by the painter, should not be subjected to copyright, as his interpretation of the existing photo originates entirely from his aesthetic feeling, and has noting to do with the idea and emotion that the photographer intended to express. According to him, all he used of the photo is the image element, which, in this case, is a man of unknown, and thus this practice should be equally regarded as drawing any common object in the environment, such as an apple or the natural view. This arouse a question which is later brought up by Joy, that “who owns the rights to the man’s struggle?” Clearly, Joy holds the opinion that photos are just presentation of real life subjects and events. Although the photographers are using their photos to show their emotions or tell a story to the public, audiences should have the freedom of interpreting the photo as they wishes, without being “controlled” by the photographer, neither being “forced” to accept the original emotions attached to it. This attitude is reasonable in a sense, since photos, even if edited, largely restore the reality, depicting common assets, which are possessed by no one. Referring back to the case, no one possess an exactly correct description of how the man in the photo feels and what he is doing. Reinterpretation of the emotion of the man should not be restricted by the copyright law. After all, copyright should not ban artists from using common assets to create and innovate, especially since the recreation has nothing to do with the original design purpose.
After reading Susan’s opinion towards this case, I am leaning towards supporting her position. It is true that photos present things in real life settings, whose contents do not belong to the photographer. But, as Susan points out, all the photos have their own context, implying different stories happening in specific time and place. Jay’s reinterpretation of the man certainly takes it out of the context, disregarding the original story and meaning. This is unfair to both Susan and the man, and do harm their benefits, for such practice disrespect the reality, and would even cause potential influences to the man’s lives. In such understanding, what copyright laws act is to secure the original author with the right to explain his or her creation, defining its initial implication. If the work, whatever format, is created in a certain context, to which the author has a strong emotional or personal attachment, he or she definitely does not want others to redefine its meaning or emotion. The copyright law thus guarantee the original author with the right of defining his or her work, protecting his or her credit and respects.
Ultimately, it is about the balance between copyright violation and appropriate recreation, and either extreme will lead to ineffectiveness of copyright laws. In current art fields, there exists many open recourses which are seen as common assets for the artists to use, encouraging creativities and innovations, while the use of copyright assets are more restrictive. One might argue that copyright law restricts creativity and innovations, but I want to argue that copyright artworks are limited while the free common assets are much more abundant. Although copyright do lead to corruptions and commercial exploitation sometimes, their restrictions on social creativity are essentially minor. After all, experienced dancers can dance even when tangled by chains. There is also many new ideas about adjusting copyright laws, such as a type of copyright protection called CC license, which authors or artists has the initiative to define to what extent and under what context can the contents be used in other works. This is more flexible, and yet giving an even more blurred boundary. I believe the debate around copyright will constantly go on, but the most important thing is to strike the balance and find the most reasonable boundary.