Artist Bryan Zanisnik was half an hour into reading Philip Roth’s The Great American Novel inside a Plexiglass case surrounded by junk when the author’s lawyers served him with a cease and desist letter. Mid-performance. Opening night. The kicker? He was reading it silently.
The Abrons Art Center on the Lower East Side hosting Zanisnik’s Every Inch a Man are “shocked” but ”not very concerned,” they tell ArtNet. “The grounds of the cease and desist are erroneous. We’re not reading anything out loud or reproducing anything — there’s no chance here of copyright infringement.” Is this the new age of Thought Copyright Police or did the lawyers just make an oops? Why’s the Abrons Art Center site down? Uh-oh.
Not sure why this SHOULDN'T be copyright infringement. If there is any validity to the "piece" as "art", then it lays in the IDEA that this man is reading this book. The "worth" of said "piece" is intrinsically tied to the "thought" or "idea" of him reading that book. Therefor, any "value" of said "art" originates, in large part, to the actual work and efforts put forth by the author of the book, not the artist.
Maybe the quote unquote "artist" should try working on effectual art that seeks to have integrity and more than transient discussion value and not the emperor's new clothes and he wouldn't find himself in this position.
Are you seriously trying to say that copyright should extend to the thoughts generated by a creative work? If so, you owe me $10 for reading this comment.
Here's the thing: I don't honestly feel that this should necessarily be viewed as copyright infringement. I was more trying to suggest that this is as much of a case of copyright infringement as Zasinisk's "work" is a piece of art. In both cases, my opinion is that there is very little to substantiate either claim.
Perhaps it would be less heinous of an act for Roth's lawyers to issue this cease and desist if there wasn't a widespread movement by contemporary artists to copyright THEIR ideas. What first comes to mind is the recent commercial (I'm forgetting what product it was for right now, perhaps a cell phone service) in which a group of people were covering large areas/objects with a huge piece of tarp/cloth. On the bottom of the screen there was a disclaimer citing that Jean Claude and Christo had no part in the making of it nor was it referencing their work, or something like that. The disclaimer seemed entirely unnecessary: as if Jean Claude and Christo own the idea of wrapping large objects.
If artists are getting closer to copyrighting their "ideas" and the expression of them, then it would stand to reason that the idea of Roth's book is an intrinsic component of the idea of Zanisnik's art, and as such, the art could not exist without that book. How fair would it be for Zanisnik to copyright the idea of reading Roth's book in a cluttered plexi-box, and then sue someone for repeating it, be compensated monetarily, and then Roth not receive any of that money?
I don't think you're using "enough" quotations to express your "feelings" about art.
I kid. In all seriousness, have you read The Great American Novel and are personally offended or is just a general bias?
Haha, I apologize for the overuse of the scare quotes. It was kind of rude, but I feel expressed what I wanted it to.
Honestly, I haven't read the book, but I think there is something to the argument that Roth and his Lawyers may have. See above comment.
Also, I'd be interested to see what they had put in writing as evidence for their claim. Perhaps I'll have to do some internet digging and get back to you.