Not about art, or is it?

The subject of copyright laws, specifically as they pertain to the following: artists, visual art, the internet, and Creative Commons license has been on my mind of late as I have been thinking of getting another tattoo. Undoubtedly, the internet has given us the ability to access the world at large. The internet capabilities for social networking, marketing, and buying/selling goods and services have made some great strides for artists, musicians, etc. And this is merely the surface of the internet's capabilities. Technology has made it possible for musicians, visual artists, and writers to make a name for themselves internationally when they may have only been able to reach to a geographically local audience before.

Hypothetical: An artist uploads images of her work onto her personal website. Now that this artist has put her work into a public forum, does this mean her work is up for grabs? What is the moral framework for someone else to download this artist's work, print it out and make and sell t-shirts of her work?

Does the intention of the downloader alter the ethical compass? For example, if I want to get a tattoo of Artist X's painting he has put into the public domain on his website, is that acceptable without asking permission first? Perhaps I really admire this artist and want to immortalize their work on my body- am I within grounds to do so without asking permission?

Sure, artsists could choose not to showcase any of their work online, but in the current framework of culture, many artists can not afford to not have even a small portfolio of their work online.

From an artists' perspective, allowing strangers to take artwork (even on a personal website) and permanently engrave it into their skin without permission could potentially take away the artistic merit, intention, and artist's personal statement.

While many tattoo artists specialize in recreating artwork, there is still room for reinterpretation and error. When situations like this occur, is it the tattoo artist's responsibility to not do the tattoo or do their loyalties lie with their client and making their customer happy? If a piece has a copyright mark on the work itself, does the tattoo artist have an obligation to deny the customer's request and honor the original artist's copyright?

Especially within the visual arts, anyone with the knowledge can take someone else's photo, manipulate it, and call it their own without ever seeking permission from the orginal photographer. In an academic realm, one would consider this plagarism. Depending on the artistic context, this could be considered artistic statement. For example, the dialogue that occured in the 80s with the revolution of computers in a graphic context focused largely on this: If I take a photo of the Mona Lisa and manipulate it and make an entirely different work of art, am I stealing?

The internet's greatest asset and hinderance is anonymity: we can be whomever we choose, we can project ourselves in whatever light we decide. Ultimately, there is no punishment for stealing another's work online. I won't be thrown out of university, I won't be fired from my job for lifting a photo from a photographer's website. Unless the work being stolen is used for personal profit, what retribution can an artist seek?

Tangentially, where is the line between a person taking your work and using it on their website or in some other internet context and viewing this as publicity for an artist's work?

While program such as iTunes have attempted to mainstream downloading of music in line with copyright laws, the beauty of programs such as Napster (when it was free), Limewire, etc. have reframed music as a stream of information, as an artistic expression and not a financial commodity. At the very core, this is why the RIAA is fighting against illegal downloading and not artists (except Lars Ulrich and he hasn't been culturally relevant in at least a decade...).

So why are musicians more in favor "illegal" distribution of their music, whereas visual artists are much likelier to oppose illegal distribution of their work? One notion is that musicians stand to gain more from their live performances, merchandise, and even though their music may be illegaly distributed- ultimately, they still receive credit for their work in that the users know who created the work and in many cases, the musician's name still appears on the file. For artists who rely upon their art as a source of income, someone taking their work without permission rarely gives them the credit and when the art IS the merchandise being sold, you are no longer making money for your work.

And then there's the entire issue of creative commons. Briefly, creative commons allows ANYONE to distribute their work for noncommercial purposes with the understanding that others may share the work for free without any risk of being sued. For example, writers can share the text of their novel, but sell the print copies. Creative commons actually protects the audience more than the artists. Why would anyone share their work under a creative commons license? Some see it as a way to maintain art as shared information not a capitalistic venture for others outside of the artist to gain financially. Some artists have actually been quite financially successful with their use of creative commons. Initially, Wilco released their album, Yankee Hotel Fox Trot under a creative commons license when their record label refused to distribute the album. When the album became popular, a label decided to distribute it and the record become one of their most popular. The issue of creative commons is a complex one, one that is especially hard for one to wrap their head around having been raised in a capitalistic society. How can giving your work away for free be profitable?

That being said, if you didn't stand to gain financially from your artistic work, would you consider distributing under a creative commons license? Is this a way to help get your name out there as a writer, a poet, a musician? Again the fine line of sharing work on the internet and publicity comes into play. With creative commons though, it seems that the integrity of the artist's work is preserved as the work can only be reproduced exactly.

A few summary thoughts: Once an artist has released his or her work into the public domain (internet or otherwise), that the work is no longer their own? Do artists who do not care about the sharing or copyrights of their work hurt other artists who do take great care to copyright their own work? If a person takes an artists work from the internet and reuses it (but not for financial gain), is this still within the limits of copyrights AND how does this fit within a moral framework? With the vastness of the internet, how would an organization police the use and re-use of other's art work? Will we ever get to a point where it will be possible and/or necessary to police the free flow on information on the internet or is it happening already?