What Would Melanie Think?

Or, attempting to do the right thing with regard to copyright

There's a good deal of difference between what is legal, what is considered proper, and what, ultimately, is just. Obviously it's perfectly legal, proper and just for me to release the photographs I've taken of my work and the text I've written about it under any creative commons license I please. Similarly, US law has not yet become so insane that I need permission from, say, the Huron Metroparks (which are public property) to publish photographs of flowers I take on their premises.

People, unless they are famous, are by law protected from having their portraits photographed and published unless they give written consent; however, if they constitute part of an overall scene, then one is permitted to photograph them. However, it is considered improper to photograph the Amish and some other groups because they do not wish it. In fact, because so many people dislike having their pictures taken, and because I prefer candid shots, you'll seldom see human beings on this site: I don't feel I can take the picture without asking permission first, and just the act of requesting consent almost always destroys the shot I want. I suppose someday it will be illegal even to shoot private residences, as I have been doing lately to document bargeboarding styles in the Washtenaw county area; thankfully, we're not to that point yet.

That, at the current time, is a moot issue, since I've barely begun to take the pictures, let alone publish them. And it's obvious that works belonging wholely to others---on this site, Joel Keener's art or Deb Brown's story (in APA section)---remains under their copyright, to license or not solely as they please.

Where I find the issue slightly sticky is in my photographs of other artists' works, as in the trade section. In most cases I own the work as well the image, and therefore am perfectly justified in licensing it how I please. (In fact, as I understand the law, unless the artist specifically retains reproduction rights to a given piece, only I, as owner, have these rights. ---Hm. And about multiple editions, which a great many production beads are by nature? Nothing is simple...but obviously I'm happy to let the original creators use my pictures of their own pieces!) I'm not entirely certain what would be considered proper, and frankly, I don't care what the mores of the art community dictate, since I often find them overly possessive. I do, however, care what my fellow artists think about the issue. After all, they were kind enough to trade their works with me, and my goal, in posting these pieces, is to honor, not anger them.

I really do believe in the creative commons ``get it out there'' model; at the same time I recognize that others may not, and the `derivative works' clause makes a good many folks very nervous indeed. As whatever claim I lay to creativity almost certainly centers around the ability to mix'n'match bits and pieces of stuff that's done before, I personally am very sympathetic to the approach. For me, it's not ``copying''. For others, it may be.

So my compromise, which seems to me just as well as legal, is to license the images under an attributed/non-commercial/non-derivative license: in this way my friends' work can be publicized, without the worry that it be distorted or commercialized in a way they wouldn't care for.

It's a compromise---perhaps some of the artists would prefer I use the less restricted versions---but such is life. We do the best we can. (And who is Melanie? Melanie is Melanie Brooks Lucaks of Earthenwood, whom I selected because a) I know her reasonably well, and felt I could sort of guess her reactions b) she's a full-time artist, dependent upon her work to pay the rent and put food on the table and c) as a porcelain clay artist is in a medium just slightly different enough from mine where I felt I could be objective. Plus I admire her tremendously: attempting to put myself in her shoes meant I would curb my tendancy to be self-serving.)