17 Comments

  1. selective cable

    Amen, Thomas.

    As far as I know, no-one has yet copyrighted beams of light, and that is all photography is, after all. If my camera happens to be points here, or here, or here, I’m still just capturing tiny little beams of light. That’s all. What happens to be at the end of this particular beam is nothing but cosmic co-incidence and don’t let anyone else tell you any differently.

    Copyright? It deserves to go the way of the slave trade. Damn them all sir. Damn them all.

  2. rapid hands

    As an aside, Richard Prince did the album artwork for one of my favorite Sonic Youth albums, Sonic Nurse:

    The sad part about copyright is it is usually only enforceable (and militantly so) by those that are the least vulnerable – huge corporations. Those with little resources (that have intellectual property that can mean the difference between making a basic living and not) are easily eaten and exploited by the system.

  3. torbakhopper

    love the emphasis you put on MAKING and PLAYING with the art and one’s responsive interaction with it

    imo, all art galleries should encourage photography. keeping it lively and interactive is important and art is always enlarged by reinterpretation and redistribution/presentation (hence the great album cover for sonic nurse, even though richard prince assimilated the images and barely rearranged them before printing them off on a big epson printer and throwing some viscous liquids at it to make it look like art instead of photoshopped canvas giclee — actual cost = $450 dollars in materials and suddenly a four by nine piece that is worth untold amounts: see here for marlboro man assimilations that sold for over a million! http://www.artcritical.com/appel/BAPrinceRecord.htm)

    besides, corps will make more money if their images are exposed and become common place. insurance goes up, collections inflate, blah blah blah

    i recently read about a guy who encouraged people to always create something after hearing a great musical work or seeing some kind of dance or theater. that the ongoing of the art is dependent upon creative response not just the bs critical response that is so TODAY

  4. lightboxdc

    I distinctly recall digging around the ‘net once on the subject of photography and Starbucks, and I recall that their corp. ofc. told someone they did not, in fact, have a corporate policy banning photography within their stores. And they cannot, of course, attempt to ban photography of their stores from the outside.

  5. last crate

    Hi, I’m an admin for a group called Mal’s Best of the Best, and we’d love to have your photo added to the group.

  6. shaycam

    to lightboxdc: actually, I worked for Strarbucks for 4 years and they did have a policy against photography INSIDE their stores. It wasn’t enforced often, but it did exist.

  7. lightboxdc

    A senior public affairs employee at their headquarters says there is no policy against general photography inside the stores: "Starbucks does not have a photo policy for the general public. Our policy is not to allow media to photograph within our stores without prior approval from our media relations marketing team."

    More here:
    flickr.com/photos/dcmatt/124642017/

    And another Flickr member reports on the results of their inquiry to the company’s general customer service line, which yielded a non-written policy that most general photography is perfectly fine:

    http://www.flickr.com/groups/starbucks/discuss/120497/#comment72...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *