tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25473451.post2419947253556886540..comments2024-03-17T19:22:37.877-04:00Comments on Mike Lynch Cartoons: Larson Not LaughingMike Lynchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06589354018554341768noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25473451.post-81322866295093877912008-08-17T21:52:00.000-04:002008-08-17T21:52:00.000-04:00This may be a little late but...Just because you b...<I>This may be a little late but...</I><BR/>Just because you bought a book that doesn't give you the right to scan and re-publish the images. When you bought the book you bought the right to look at them.<B> NOT</B> reproduce them.PrettyGraphic Designhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15633643465045680933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25473451.post-4686318957533191722008-03-24T04:46:00.000-04:002008-03-24T04:46:00.000-04:00Cynical Optimist Realist has made an excellent poi...Cynical Optimist Realist has made an excellent point. I hadn't thought of that before - that Larson wants to have some control over how his work is used in the advancement of the causes of others, especially those he might not personally agree with.<BR/><BR/>I wonder then, why he hid behind the copyright issue when he contacted me?<BR/><BR/>But, it's a good point. And well taken.<BR/><BR/>However, having said that, I don't agree that an artist can exert a moral right over their work once they SELL it to someone else. I am an author myself of two best selling books, both of which fall into the sociology field, and both of which help people to understand other people, for purposes of exerting some form of influence over them. How on earth is it possible for me to exert moral control over how people use my work?<BR/><BR/>If a great work of art inspires someone to think, do, or be something, how is it possible for the artist to exert influence over that response. <BR/><BR/>I think artists need to understand that one day "their children" (as Larson put it to me through his lawyer) grow up and leave the home, and then they must speak and live for themselves.<BR/><BR/>If you can't handle that, then don't be an artist!Graeme Codringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00870850820738968819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25473451.post-73912053620723091112008-03-21T08:14:00.000-04:002008-03-21T08:14:00.000-04:00I am in total agreement with Mike on this topic. A...I am in total agreement with Mike on this topic. As someone who has many of Gary Larson's books I have to agree that it is indeed one thing to pin your favourite cartoons on a locker or display framed copies in your home, but it is an entirely different matter to use his work to promote a corporate entity or personal views. An artist, regardless of their chosen medium or genre displays something of their inner self in their work. What we see from Larson's work is someone who is not trying to limit their humour to a particular mindset, political view or religious belief. This brings me to a point slightly overlooked in the comments I have read. That is misrepresentation, perhaps Mr. Larson wishes to see his work remain universally accessible and does not wish to see it used to promote any rigid set of personal, religious or political views. In my view it is weak and naive to hide behind a defense such as "we're only trying to bring (insert deity here) to underprivileged children". How would people react if Mr. Larson allowed his work to be used by a neo-fascist group because they said "hey, we're only trying to educate underprivileged children about the Fuhrer". So perhaps Mr. Larson was not concerned about lost revenue at all but concerned that his body of work would be used to represent ideals and beliefs far beyond their intended purpose. Thank you for reading and please remember when you buy the work of an artist you are purchasing it for your personal enjoyment, this does not entitle you to reproduce this work to promote your business or indeed promote your personal beliefs.MEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04752459904447716099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25473451.post-47021380612715265562008-03-20T07:21:00.000-04:002008-03-20T07:21:00.000-04:00Mike, thanks for picking this up off my blog. If ...Mike, thanks for picking this up off my blog. If it wasn't clear in my original post (which received way more interest than I thought it would), I have never used anyone's copyright work for profit. I make use of multimedia, music, videos and pictures in my presentations (which are for profit) and always seek permission before doing so. I also pay an annual performing artist license fee to doubly cover myself.<BR/><BR/>The point of my blog was the non profit use of the material by church youth group leaders. I am sure that this would lead to a good type of exposure, and certainly did not (and would not) generate income for them.<BR/><BR/>Thanks again for the discussion. Nice.Graeme Codringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00870850820738968819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25473451.post-61258797112023929782007-04-18T22:16:00.000-04:002007-04-18T22:16:00.000-04:00I agree with your views about copywrite issues and...I agree with your views about copywrite issues and in particular private use being exempt. However a blog is a powerful web publishing tool and therefore bloggers should respect artists/creators rights and seek permission or at least inform the copywrite holder of their intention to publish. I think this is a matter of common courtesy.<BR/>Onya NigelNigel Beardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12930361580686623268noreply@blogger.com