What is Art?

[Legacy_Lazarus Magni]

               

To me it is the ability to use a medium (or pallet) do make something new, and share it with the world.

 

As such, I very much see NWN1 as a medium, and community content (in it's multiple forms, from single player campaigns, to PWs, to vault contributions for either) as Art.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Lazarus Magni]

               

Unlike Sculpture, or Painting, or Drawing, or Dance, or Theater, or any of the other myriad of accepted forms of "Art", I think this digital form (amongst others) is truly art.

 

And the fact that, it is dynamic art, and by that I mean has the capacity to evolve based off those that "view" it, makes it a pretty unique art form.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_NWN_baba yaga]

               

I like the aspect of dynamic art you mentioned. I never heard it before but i´m sure it´s exactly what you describe or more what a freeshare mod community truly does where everyone can base a new shape or meaning on an already existing art someone else did. Heh, that is cool '>

               
               

               
            

[Baaleos]

               

I was actually thinking about this recently - not directly with nwn in mind.

On the news here in the UK, there was a dispute on the news regarding who owns the rights to a photo selfie taken by a Monkey.

 

Legally - Photography is considered an Art 

Photographers are considered Artists

 

Someone was claiming that the photo belongs to him, because it was his camera.

I do not know how the issue was eventually resolved or if it is in dispute still

 

But my interpretation of Art is that Art belongs to the Artists unless a release is signed to transfer rights.

 

If a monkey makes a photo - it obviously wont belong to him, therefore the photo as property may be considered the camera owners, but the creative rights of the photo are not necessarily transferred with ownership of that single photo instance.

 

Art is basically anything that you can be creative with. It can really be anything - 

I've heard people refer to coding / programming as an Art-Form.

Its highly logical, but some people do excel at it and implement code in ways that are creative and artistic.

 

NWN Being a highly mod-able game is a form of art. I think it may actually legally be considered a 'creative art' - if you were to get into the legalities of it.

Mod-able games are kinda like those paintings that we all do in school when we are kids - where we get a dollop of paint, and use a straw and blow to make a random spider/tree-like image.

Everyone is working on something individual, but when you stand back and look at it - yes, it can look like a mess, but it can also look very impressive and artistic

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_WhiZard]

               

Someone was claiming that the photo belongs to him, because it was his camera.

I do not know how the issue was eventually resolved or if it is in dispute still

 

But my interpretation of Art is that Art belongs to the Artists unless a release is signed to transfer rights.

 

I believed 'the photographed' have the rights before 'the photographer'. Most professional photographers will have written agreements that 'the photographed' would cede rights to 'the photographer'.  But if a person does not wish to be photographed, that must be respected, even by the media.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Tarot Redhand]

               

Actually I believe that the rule is that whoever (or in this case whatever) pushed the button to take the photograph has the intellectual property rights. It was reported that the human photographer lost his case.

 

TR

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_WhiZard]

               

I don't think "push the button" is part of the legal definition.  There are so many times that a family gives their camera to a stranger for a family shot.  Ownership of the camera would definitely have more weight than "pushing the button."

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Tarot Redhand]

               

Here is a link to the article in the guardian newspaper from 2 days ago.

 

TR

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_NWN_baba yaga]

               

Realy uninspiring these IP issues. I understand that there must be a law that makes sense and protects YOUR work but the more I think about photographs the less I understand how a picture of lets say the nature can be copyrighted. How can an image of the nature be copyrighted if it is just a bunch of millions of little organic lifeforms who has no say whatsoever because they cant speak...

 

I know that sounds weird but taking a picture of a dog who cant say "hey f*** that i dont like to be photographed while doing my business" and then throw a copyright on it is just silly and unfair. Maybe it´s just that i think no one has the right to copyright nature (all of it) + i hate overregulated bureaucrazy.

 

Whatever I still think people especialy photographers take it sometimes to far... taking a picture of something else is not realy art to me. It has nothing to do with creativity because you are only a spectator pushing a button and thats it. Even if it is a beautifull picture of a sunset the sunset itself is the beauty not the image. It´s just a medium and all is created by a machine. Totaly different to what we do or a painter imo who has to use skills, imagination and actually do something....

               
               

               
            

[Baaleos]

               Yeah - you are right about Photographers requiring consent to photographing their subjects in most countries.
Some countries I believe the rules are less enforced than others.

I think in the case of the Monkey - it wasnt so much a case that his ownership of the photograph was being contested. It was his film, his camera etc
It was more along the artistic license he was trying to lay claim to.
Basically, he thought he could cash in on the photo - but in actual fact he legally had no right to cash in on it, since he was not the artist who took the photo.
Therefore he had no artistic license over the photo.

Whatever I still think people especialy photographers take it sometimes to far... taking a picture of something else is not realy art to me. It has nothing to do with creativity because you are only a spectator pushing a button and thats it. Even if it is a beautifull picture of a sunset the sunset itself is the beauty not the image. It´s just a medium and all is created by a machine. Totaly different to what we do or a painter imo who has to use skills, imagination and actually do something....

Not everyone sees it as Art, and I agree, to a degree it is just about being present and recording an event.
But its hard to deny that some photos have artistic value - when you see very striking images recorded and immortalized in film.

Sometimes its not all about the photo, its about whats being captured by the photo, that makes it art.
They have Art exhibitions around the world, that exhibit photos from holocausts and warzones.
These things, no matter how distressful to look at, are emotive, like art and people will pay to see and possess such photos for their artistic value.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_WhiZard]

               

Here is a link to the article in the guardian newspaper from 2 days ago.

 

TR

 

So we have a British photographer whose claims his IP is being misused by an American company.  There is a lot more at play here and I am not sure the courts really want to get involved in this case that much anyway.  The copyright law wikipedia cites is irrelevant (as it is US).  But the story the photographer produced is that the monkeys did not cooperate with him to take pictures (as an assistant role).  Rather they stole the camera, and he took it back later.  That is the issue under contention, not that the monkeys "pushed the button", but they took possession of the camera.

               
               

               
            

[Baaleos]

               In this occasion, I think Wikipedia has it spot on.
Ownership of photographic works belong to the photographer legally.
Until animals are recognized as having the ability to be recognized as legal owners of property, the default judgement would be that the photo belongs to no-one.

I do however see a possible loop hole - and I am in no way saying it 'would' work in a court of law, but it would be something to consider..
From watching a lot of 'Peoples Court' - Animals (specifically Pets), are property of the Pet owner.
If a 'pet' Monkey took the photo, the owner of the pet could argue that the ownership of the photo would default to them because their property (the pet) was the author/owner of the photograph.

Since these monkeys were in the wild however, no such loophole could be applied.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_WhiZard]

               

In this occasion, I think Wikipedia has it spot on.

 

 

Spot on for its conclusion that the photos had no copyright.  Their reasoning, however, is quite off base.

 

 

I do however see a possible loop hole - and I am in no way saying it 'would' work in a court of law, but it would be something to consider..

From watching a lot of 'Peoples Court' - Animals (specifically Pets), are property of the Pet owner.

If a 'pet' Monkey took the photo, the owner of the pet could argue that the ownership of the photo would default to them because their property (the pet) was the author/owner of the photograph.

 

Think of it this way.  If the British photographer trained the monkeys to take quality photos and used them for this function, then his argument that they were assistants would stand.  In scientific labs, the works of animals are owned by the companies that take care of them; there is no difference here.  But let say the photographer trained 100 monkeys with this skill and later the monkeys caused problems to tourists by stealing cameras and taking unwanted pictures.  The British photographer could then be legally culpable for this disaster.  By denying any role in training the monkeys, the British photographer lost all claim that these photographs were taken as part of his photography business.

               
               

               
            

[Baaleos]

               

In scientific labs, the works of animals are owned by the companies that take care of them; there is no difference here

Those scientific labs 'own' the animals as property, and therefore any works created by them would be derived from property already belonging to the companies. I know we like to think of animal companions as members of the family and such - But in the eyes of the law - Animals are usually considered property if at all.

If the British photographer had trained AND OWNED 100 monkeys, his case may have turned out differently.
But in the end, its simple a case of property ownership.

Photographs as works of art belong to the photographer (being the artist), monkeys CANNOT be owners of property, but they can be owned as pets. In this case the monkey was not and as such the photographer could not claim that the photograph was derived from his property (the wild un-owned monkey)
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_WhiZard]

               

If the British photographer had trained AND OWNED 100 monkeys, his case may have turned out differently.

But in the end, its simple a case of property ownership.

 

 

Where are you coming up with ownership of animals?  That has little to do with the issue present.  Let's remove the 'animal part' and say I positioned my camera underneath a branch that was swaying in the wind.  I posed in front of the camera, and when the branch hit the button, my picture was taken.  Who has the IP rights for that picture?  According to wikipedia's logic, I wouldn't because the picture was taken by natural phenomena (by which categorization they are including animals).  However, the law would rule differently.  "Pressing the button" is not a legally defined term to describe the process of attributing ownership of a photograph.  The only thing that is being considered legally in this situation is that the photographer said his camera was "stolen".  In other words, the photographer was not simply using animals as a natural gimmick to get his photographs creatively taken.  Instead, these photographs were taken out of his control using an unforeseen methodology.

 

Furthermore, one does not have to own an animal to be culpable of its misbehavior.  If you train a creature to misbehave or perform undisciplined functions you may still be accountable for whatever mayhem becomes of the training (provided the mayhem can be easily traced to a particular instance of training).