Showing posts with label Appropriate?. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Appropriate?. Show all posts

Monday, January 18, 2016

Complaining about nipples?


Recently, in order to celebrate Ms.Moss' big day, @nicostandard's posted a semi-naked kate pic. Unfortunately, his ability to share the image was limited. 

After being censored he posted the following image and wrote: 
"So apparently my #katemoss #birthday picture contravened instagram's strict (read sexist) decency guidelines. I think #DonaldTrump #nipples are more #offensive. Let's see what #nannystate Instagram has to say. #instagramisforpussies #freethenipple"

In further communication with ishotkatemoss, Nico wrote that "They (instagram) took my non-trump picture down as it was offensive apparently. How are female nipples more offensive than male nipples? Pretty sexist and out of date I feel"

This reminded us of our own censorship problems with instagram, as documented in Censorship and Racks and felt it worth highlighting in more detail. Upon further investigation, this is not an isolated incident for kate and other, even over the last few days:

@villoid had the exact same challenge and reposted an image and stated:
 "Our last post was deleted so we've covered the problem (nipples) with some cocktail emojis. Raise your glass then drink it for Kate Moss who turned 42 YESTERDAY."
villoid, went on to promote themselves and ended with a kate quote "Never complain, never explain" - KM" and the hashtag #freethenipple

As always, the comment section can offer moments of, if not clarity, at least interesting misspellings:
 
·  asliisen: Omg this cured all the world's problems god bless #nipples ugh they're disgusting

·  _mircea_masserini_: Why female nipple are banned but not male nipples? From the anatomical point of view they are she SAME thing! It's not a genital area!!! Instagram has a hypocritical and discriminatory policy.

·  s.kyli: @instagram ur sexist policy needs 2 go :)

·  kaydiprincipe: What's wrong with nipples @instagram

·  melissa_manchester: Ohmylord! 100% of us have nipples! #chandlerbing even has three. You need to get a grip @Instagram Don't kowtow to the nonsensicalness 

·  _heyungmoneycurious, what is the difference between a male nipple and a female nipple? not only are your rules sexist, but idiotic. Please get your shit together, thank you @instagram

·  graceelizabethward: You should copy and paste some acceptable male nipples over the top

·  heathermorneau: Ugh can't get over the fact that @Instagram still sexualizes female nipples yet not the male counterpart. So sexist. And the part that makes the least sense is how, since the only difference in appearance between them is the amount of fatty tissue beneath them, anything but that is being covered by these 'edits' we are forced to post in order to abide by the rules

Free the Nipple is an equality movement focused upon the double standards regarding the sexualization and censorship of female breasts started by activist and filmmaker Lina Esco. And yes, we do use the hashtag in our own posts to highlight the hypocrisy as it relates to the issue of double standards relative to male/female censorship.

However, as we worked through such social media policies again, it is evident that distinctions are not made based on the gender of the person in the photograph or even the inappropriateness of an image. A determination, and therefore censorship, is made based on a specific promotional hashtag.

It is evident that a great deal of images that most in society would deem more challenging that that of kate are free to stand in the public domain of social media ... i.e. you can post an image such as this:





or this:




 
then there would be nothing wrong ... however, if you added "#nipples" then your image is automatically problematic!
(thanks to @bigasscityz_  and @goregeous_sexy_dudes for their respective contributions to our analysis ... we are equal opportunity here at iskm and are happy to show the craziness and hypocrisy of all)

Such social media policies again raise questions of free speech, decency, censorship, image distribution and what is in fact appropriate?

So, you see, we should in fact be complaining about our right to freely hashtag as we wish! If you want to post the following pictures:





or this: 






then we should have every right to tag it with #nipples!!!
(thanks to @houseofhold and @diaryofamadschnauzer for their respective contributions. We don't breed discriminate either)

Maybe we should start our own movement "#freethehasthag"!?! Rather than delve more deeply into a topic that if it wasn't so sad would be hilarious, we will wrap things up turn back to the comment section in response to villoid's censored kate image ...

·  lstuhl: Ummmmm, but you explained and kinda complained. Not very Kate...

Yes, a moment of clarity ... ishotkatemoss, not very kate
Observe. Slow Down. Shoot. Submit.
 

Sunday, August 9, 2015

Copykat(e)


Last week we stumbled upon an ebay listing from “imusthaveitkate” that we thought of great interest:

Item Id:
291521950042
End time:
Aug-02-15 06:04:38 PDT
Seller information
100% Positive feedback

Item specifics
Seller Notes:
“In Superb Unmounted Condition, Colours are Bright and Sharp, has West Country Prince stamp and Banksy Copy Stamp Limited Edition of just 50 examples in Red/Yellow Colours, very slight indent bottom right but outside of mounting area so would not be seen when mounted, very tiny corner crease, again will be unseen if mounted, main image is perfect and sharp. I have receipt and can prove this is 100% with online history provenance, so please bid with confidence.”
Self-Representing Artist?:
No
Type:
Modern - Limited Edition
Original/ Repro:
Unknown
Subject:
Kate Moss
Signed?:
Unsigned
Style:
Pop Art

Hello,
I have for auction a very nice piece by Banksy of Kate Moss in the style of Warhols' Monroe, in Red/Yellow colours, limited edition of just 50 examples, stamped to the rear with the West Country Prince and Banksycopy stamps, size is approx. 70x70cm, colours are superb, nice and bright/sharp, has a small indent bottom right, which is in the mount boarder, so would not be seen when mounted up, and the top left corner has a very small crease, again not noticed if mounted up, I have shown these in the photos, as you can see they are very  very minimal, but wanted to mention it.
I have receipt of purchase, I can prove this is 100% authentic with online history/provenance etc so please bid with confidence.
A wonderful example of a Banksy, an artist who's works are very sought after.
Any questions about this piece please ask, happy for inspections and collections, more than happy to post worldwide to ebay registered addresses only, tracked where requested/paid.
Happy bidding.
KS

Included with the ad were 11 additional images of the print:

The piece had a starting bid of £0.99 (roughly US$1.54) which caught us off guard as you may recall from our ‘Pushing the boundaries andseeing what happens’ post of late-January, 2015 that a similar Banksy piece was being offered for 'only' $145,000. That is a pretty steep discount for a “100% authentic” and “wonderful example of a Banksy, an artist who's works are very sought after.”

So, we did a little bit of research on the web and found some interesting facts: BANKSYCOPY prints 'are the exact dimensions and colours as the originals, as they have been scanned from the original prints. They are stamped "BANKSYCOPY" on the reverse to prevent being sold on the market as originals. The only difference between these and the originals is that they are not signed or numbered by Banksy but come with their own numbering system and stamp.'

We also stumbled upon an interesting dialogue on a Banksy forum taking place on the Urban Art Association regarding the reproduction of such 'high quality' Banksy copies, which began with the following statement from ‘sundowner’, and includes some responses (with typos and misspells included) we have selected from just the first page of the, count them, 32 pages of responses:

Sundowner: … Banksy's images have been reproduced countless times the world over, but this is surely going a step too far in terms of reproducing the original print editions? The (ebay) listing states they are reproductions and go so far as to have a "Banksy Copy" stamp on them, but personally I think this is overstepping the mark and I am sure POW (iskm: 'Pictures on Walls', Banksy’s official outlet for the sale of his prints) will have an issue with this. Does this not violate ... copyright ... even though it says they are reproductions? …

curiosgeorge:  If they do then so does every other repro Banksy on ebay... Copyright and Banksy :) ... I wonder if a lot of forum members reading this are thinking should i be going mad at this? or buy some images i like just for the image alone rather than price tags?

craigf: Hmmm, I would expect they do violate copyright and being such clear copies doesn't sit well with me. To easy for one be sold already framed with the implication its the real deal
:(

trevorm: Too true. 'Somebody' should stop this. There's an obvious implication of a fraud in the making

shaky1181: I'd love to see banksy take someone to court...

rolex: Don't think he'l turn up some how. This is why people get away with doing stuff like this.

mmmike: I like it. I hope someone does a high end (but cheap) canvas version. I bet Banksy doesn't care.

brushstrokes75: … Ebay won't remove anything if Banksy (or his representation) don't ask them too ... Sometimes you like an image, don't want or don't have thousands to spend on it. Here you can get a quality copy … I actually like the fact it stamped copy on the back with their own blindstamp which makes it more legal in their illegality … I don't see what the problem is. As I recall, most people here keep saying that it's only about the image. So, why pay £2K for a print if you can buy the same quality image for £30 lol

chaserwr: … I want it.... Is it really the same quality as the original? I guess the screenprint isnt that difficult.

mojjac: You could have the whole Banksy portfolio for less than the cost of one unisgned print.

freeview: This is damaging and could really devalue ligit prints
:(

mojjac: I would have thought that if you loved the art for the message that it conveyed then its material value would not matter?

Guest: How could this devalue legit prints? Stuff like this has been on eBay for years. Most people now ask for a COA (iskm: Certificate of Authenticity) before they buy and you aren't going to get one of those for these. I don't see the issue, it’s all about if you want the image on your wall or the signature for bragging rights.

Time for iskm to jump back in … given that a COA is actually referenced for this copy as well, so we wondered, if you have a certificate specifying that the providence of the piece is a copy, does it make the piece authentic? We felt it best to inquire from the ebay seller and make sure they were aware it was a copy:

Dear imusthaveitkate,
Just want to clarify, this is not an authentic banksy print, right? ...
- iskm

We also directed them towards the additional information regarding the prints, in case they needed to reference what we found. A swift response was received from imusthaveitkate:

Dear iskm,
Thank you for the information, I was aware of this, hence the photo showing the Banksycopy stamp. Many thanks for your time.
Regards
KS
- imusthaveitkate

Ah, but the point we were making was not what the seller knows but what someone looking, reading and trying to understand providence would think. Of course, is art passing itself off as the same art forgery? What about if in the act of creation it acknowledges that it is a copy?
Is such a copy, particularly in reference to pop-art a reproduction or actually a new piece of art unto itself? Is a copy of a copy of a copy art?
From Gene Korman's Marilyn photograph, to Warhol to Banksy, to the ebay listing
What if you can justifiably prove it is a copy by having authentication that it is a copy!?! What did imusthaveitkate think about this, we wondered?

Dear imusthaveitkate,
Thanks.
We wanted to check as you do specify that it is "Unknown" whether it is an "Original" or "Repro". Also, found the following statement in your listing confusing yet interesting: "I have receipt of purchase, I can prove this is 100% authentic with online history/provenance etc so please bid with confidence."
Just wondering that if it is a copy, how is it authentic? An authentic copy is still a copy is it not?
- iskm

 
Unfortunately, no response was received.
Looking at banksy’s own site, www.banksy.co.uk, it is written: "You're welcome to download whatever you wish from this site for personal use. However, making your own art or merchandise and passing it off as ‘official’ or authentic Banksy artwork is bad and very wrong."

We turned back to the forum and kept on reading:
hubblebubble: I guess the question is - does the seller seek to trick the purchaser by passing off the piece as "'official' or authentic Banksy artwork"? The seller is obviously hoping to profit from confusion ... I'm not a fan of this kind of behaviour, but I think it's pretty clear these works are not by our mysterious friend Mr B. Just sayin' :)

mattgold: I understand the ill feeling people have for this (copies)... and it doesn't sit completely well with me. But I have to admit, if I had the opportunity to get a Hirst ‘Valium’ reproduction printed in high quality for similar (even a bit more) I'd jump on it. Call it hypocritical... and you'd be right.

johnnyh: it will not effect the value of the orig prints etc. Never has. You can always buy a copy of anything but it does not effect the originals price whether that be a handbag, watch or a piece of art. Warhol is a perfect example of this with the Sunday B issues versus the originals. Massive price difference and they claim done on the same press … For those who cannot afford an original and there is nothing wrong with that. You can have one on your wall.
So I do not have a problem with the prints I do however have a problem that they are unlicensed as this is just someone making a quick buck off someone else's talent. Which in my humble opinion is wrong.
Banksy currently decides with POW what his issues sizes are signed or unsigned etc and that is his right. If he wants a zillion copies of that in IKEA etc he can do it but he decides not to and in my view that should be respected … Art is more than pictures. Collecting art is more than collecting images. Not saying it should be restricted and its not.
Look up any Banksy or any other artist’s image on the net and you can see it. This however is a copy of someone else's work …

Oh, by the way there were 7 bids on the kate moss banksycopy and the winning bid: was £42.00 (approx. US$65.59 + shipping). iskm kind of wishes we bought it, just so we could chop it up and make some art out of its pieces!

Oh wait, why do we need to buy it to do this … 
Is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy art?

Observe. Slow Down. Shoot. Submit.

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Appropriation and/or Doctorin' the Jacobs/Moss Part 3.0


A few weeks back, Richard Prince started following the ishotkatemoss instagram feed … an honor bestowed by a tap of a smart phone button, yet a distinction that is as fleeting as your battery life:

Shortly thereafter, through the handle @richardprince1234, Mr.Prince started posting more of his “One Two Three Four” images.
And yesterday, he decided to post an artwork around Marc Jacobs, of course including an image of Ms.Moss (in the number 2 position):
So, in response, and in honor of his following and liking so many of our images, we appropriated and doctored the '1 2 3 4 jacobs' and posted this image on instagram:
Dear Mr.Prince, we have observed, slowed down, shot and submit.

Monday, June 22, 2015

An image falls in the forest


The following image was posted by @ishotkatemoss on instagram yesterday with the description, tags and comments below:

Let keep it clean: it's not only father's day but today is the International Day of Yoga. So we revisit kate, Sotheby’s and @marcquinnart in a blog post at www.ishotkatemoss.blogspot.com #ishotkatemoss #katemoss #marcquinn #yoga #sculpture #hose #hosedown #clean #sothebys #fathersday #internationaldayofyoga #observe #slowdown #shoot #submit

Comments
  • ishotkatemoss Images from @100frederik @zacknach @ed.butler @cassius_jae @lauenreich @marierousseaunyu @maisonangelic @maugalvan
  • ishotkatemoss Plus additional images in blog post from @lizny3 @grantgoldman3 @rlowkes and @kaitlinkaitlinkaitlinkaitlin   


By mid-afternoon, 9 hours after submitting the image and description to instagram, the post had the grand total of 25 'likes'. Then a comment came through and a discussion ensued:
  • zacknach@ishotkatemoss I do not give consent for you to steal my photos for "your" nonsense. I want this removed. Top center photo is mine.
  • ishotkatemoss@zacknach There is no commercial purpose to the reposting and all images are in the public domain when posted to instagram, which is part of the point of the commentary i.e that we have little control over our images. This is why the photos are credited. Read the blog to understand the discussion around copyright use and artistic appropriation, which we address at length. Also ask yourself 'Did @marcquinnart give you permission to photograph his sculpture?' Please feel free to email us at ishotkatemoss@gmail.com if you have any additional feedback
  • zacknach@ishotkatemoss they are not public domain to repost as your own. Reread the terms of agreements and you will see that you need explicit consent to repost another users copyrighted information. Further, commercial or not, I do not approve of your message and want this removed or I will report.
  • zacknach@ishotkatemoss to quote the guidelines: "You own the photos and videos you post on Instagram. We ask that you respect other members of the Instagram community and don’t share content that isn’t yours."
  • ishotkatemoss@zacknach Not posting as our own but giving full credit. That being said, we will repost an updated image later today reflecting on your feedback. Please follow the project as one topic we investigate is appropriation in the digital age.

We went back to review zacknach's original post ... the image had 15 'likes', one of which was in fact from ishotkatemoss. This all raises a series of interesting questions and allowed us to reflect further on the role of images, public display and 'sharing', the idea of ownership in the digital age, and the construct of digital acknowledgement and cross-promotion (you see, a number of the other credited photographers were actually members of the ishotkatemoss post 'likes'). 

Would this instagram post and conversation have been of interest if in fact the post did not have any other people credited? And more importantly,  if an image from 6 weeks ago, that originally had so few views and affirmation, falls in the 20 billion image forest of instagram, will anyone see it?

Then another comment came through, to which we responded:
  • everymanespresso Sue me. 
  •  ishotkatemoss@everymanespresso Memories of the city coming after the best coffee shop in NY ... People only go after the greats i.e Everyman and Richard Prince! One day we may join such esteemed company


Now, this is important as you see @everymanespresso isn't just your ordinary instagram user ... run by Sam Penix, Everyman Espresso is widely known as one of, if not, the greatest coffee shop in NYC. And you see Sam, was sued by the not-so-fair City of New York, not due to the tattoo on his knuckles but the fact that the image of his tattoo was used as the store logo and apparently impinged on the city's trademark ... 

Sam's tattoo Photo: Ashley Gilbertson for The New York Times
Unfortunately, this isn't a joke with a good punch line! Read the NYTimes article from May 2013. So, dear readers, let's all celebrate honorable and open artistic expression and dialogue with a coffee at Everyman.

For more interesting information and conversation about images in the public domain, spurred on recently by a certain exhibition, search on the web for "Richard Prince, instagram" or start by having a look at this article in Vulture.
 
And in honor of zacknach, we have submitted the following video as our latest instagram post:
An image falls in the instagram forest: in honor of zacknach's comments from the last post, we have created a work of (non-commercial) art, inspired by and utilizing images from those credited below. Please read all about it today at www.ishotkatemoss.blogspot.com and feel free to comment - the debate is important and part of the point of this project #ishotkatemoss #katemoss #marcquinn #yoga #sculpture #hose #hosedown #clean #sothebys #complaints #noncommercial #appropriation #richardprince #copyright #credit #image #forest #observe #slowdown #shoot #submit 

Comments
  • ishotkatemoss Caffeinated by @everymanespresso. In addition to zacknach, inspired (and utilizing images) by @100fredrik @ed.butler @cassius_jae @laurenreich @marierousseaunyu @maisonangelic @maugalvan plus @marcquinnart and @richardprince1234

And, to prove we hold no grudge, if you would like to see zacknach's photography, please visit:
And Zack, we really think you should: Observe. Slow Down. Shoot. Submit.

Sunday, May 25, 2014

Appropriation and/or Doctorin' the Moss (redux)


Will it ever end? We think not. Therefore, let us observe and slow down in order to consider the "news" from, amongst many worthy sources, a recent edition of the NYPost:

Hefner sues blog over Kate Moss Playboy pictures
Hugh Hefner won’t share Kate Moss without a fight.
Playboy Enterprises International on Wednesday slapped operators of the culture blog Black Book with a copyright suit in Manhattan federal court, alleging the blog reproduced images of the supermodel without consent.
The pictures used were art of Moss’ cover spread in Playboy’s 60th-anniversary special in December. (The apparent post in question appears to have since been taken down.)
The suit says Manhattan-based blog operator McCarthy LCC’s (sic) use of the photos was for “commercial” purposes, since it posts ads on the website.
Playboy wants $150,000 for each “infringed work.”
The suit comes four months after Playboy sued publishing giant Hearst, claiming its Harper’s Bazaar website reproduced some of Moss’ photos without permission.
Reps for McCarthy LLC could not be reached for comment.

I don't know why Rich just didn't ask iskm for comment!?!
"We here at www.ishotkatemoss.com will fight to gloriously share kate with you all. Unfortunately, due to the lack of advertising $s generated by this blog, oh and all of that 'fair use' stuff, we don't like our chances of being served a summons. That being said, we would like to offer iskm's service to Alas & Piggott (the generators of the original images in question), Playboy Enterprises International, McCarthy LLC and all of the readers of the NYPost,  in order to sue Mr. Calder for misleading and deceptive conduct. Specifically, we will work on your behalf against his false claim that said source pictures are in fact 'art'." 
Dear Hugh, Playboy Enterprises International and the good people at MCCarthy LLC, 
Can't we all just get along and share? There is enough kate to go around for all of us.

 Observe. Slow Down. Shoot. Submit.

Saturday, February 22, 2014

Appropriation and/or Doctorin' the Moss Part 2.0


From today's NYTimes (credit where credit is due):

Photographers Band Together to Protect Work in ‘Fair Use’ Cases

To many photographers, a federal appeals court ruling last spring that permitted Richard Prince to use someone else’s photographs in his art was akin to slapping a “Steal This” label on their work.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reasoned that as long as Mr. Prince’s work transformed the images into original art, he was not violating anyone’s copyright.

But photographers are pushing back against that interpretation. Several membership and trade organizations have banded together recently to press their cause in Congress and the courts.

More than half a dozen groups, including the National Press Photographers Association, Professional Photographers of America and the Picture Archive Council of America, have joined together to submit a friend of the court brief to support the photographer Patrick Cariou, after part of his case against Mr. Prince was sent back to a judge for reconsideration. That informal coalition is considering hiring a Washington lobbyist, said Victor Perlman, general counsel for the American Society of Media Photographers, and, last month, several of the groups sent representatives to meet with legislators, including members of a House of Representatives subcommittee. 
A photo by Patrick Cariou plus Richard Prince's work, “Graduation"
One photographer has also decided to pursue a similar court fight, despite last spring’s ruling. In December, Lois Greenfield, a dance photographer, filed a lawsuit in federal court in Manhattan, arguing that paintings of dancers a Texas artist made violated her copyright. But lawsuits are expensive and, therefore, rare. The focus now, Mr. Perlman said, should be on persuading Congress to change matters. “The courts have taken an approach to fair use that we do not believe was originally intended,” he said. “A lot of what’s going to have to happen in fair use is going to have to happen on Capitol Hill.”
Jill Pankey work beside Lois Greenfield’s photo

Technological advances, shifting artistic values and dizzying spikes in art prices have turned the world of visual arts into a boxing ring for intellectual-property rights disputes. Photographers, in particular, are complaining not only that their work is being stolen by other artists, but also that their ability to create new work related to their originals is also being compromised.

Mr. Prince, who is known for reworking imagery created by others, cut out pictures from Mr. Cariou’s book on Jamaican Rastafarians, titled “Yes Rasta,” and then painted them or juxtaposed them with other images. When sales of these works at Gagosian Gallery in 2008 topped $10 million, Mr. Cariou sued.

Mr. Prince, backed by much of the fine-arts establishment, argued that he did not break the law because of what is known as the “fair use” doctrine, which allows artists — and others — to use copyrighted work in certain circumstances. Mr. Prince said he was covered by fair use because he had transformed the originals into something new.

The Warhol Foundation, which filed a brief on Mr. Prince’s behalf, essentially argued that by merely changing the context — placing a work in a museum or a gallery — an artist can transform someone else’s creation. Think of Marcel Duchamp’s putting a urinal in an art gallery or Mr. Prince’s rephotographing magazine ads featuring the Marlboro Man.
That argument failed to convince District Judge Deborah A. Batts of Manhattan, who ruled in 2011 in favor of Mr. Cariou, unsettling artists, museums and dealers who warned that the decision would choke creative expression.

Last spring, her judgment was overturned by a judicial panel that found Judge Batts’s criterion — that, to be considered “fair use,” a new work must comment on or relate to the original — too narrow. The only requirement, the panel said, was that a reasonable viewer find the new work “transformative.” Mr. Prince’s testimony that he had not intended “to create anything with a new meaning or a new message” was irrelevant. In November, the United States Supreme Court refused to review the case.

Now it was the photographers’ turn to panic. “Fair use started out as an exception to copyright law,” Mickey H. Osterreicher, general counsel for the National Press Photographers, said. “Now it seems that copyright is the exception to fair use.”
But Michael Straus, chairman of the Warhol Foundation board, cautioned that fair use “should not be read overly restrictively,” adding, “You don’t want to stifle creativity.”

Many copyright experts criticized the Second Circuit’s opinion for not saying how much transformation must take place before something is “transformative.” A complete reworking? An added smudge of paint?

Even the appeals court conceded that it was uncertain if five of the 30 collages and paintings made by Mr. Prince differed enough from Mr. Cariou’s pictures to qualify for the legally required transformation. The judges sent the part of the case dealing with those works back to Judge Batts and asked her to make a determination, but within the context of their expanded definition of fair use.

Hillel Parness, an author of the photographers’ brief in the Cariou case, said the point was to remind the court that even under the recently expanded interpretation of fair use, there are limits. Copyright holders have the “exclusive” right to make derivative works, which are defined as those that are “recast, transformed or adapted” from the original. Harry Potter, for example, is J. K. Rowling’s property, whether in the form of a book, a movie or a sequel.

“But if fair use were read as broadly as some suggest, it would destroy that right,” Mr. Parness said.
James Silverberg, an intellectual-property rights lawyer who has worked with American Photographic Artists, argues that if artists want to use someone else’s creation in their work, they should pay a fee. A movie based on a book may rake in millions, but the author is still compensated for her contribution, he said.

Mr. Osterreicher said the National Press Photographers have pushed for a small-claims copyright board to resolve the bulk of disputes, which usually involve only a few hundred dollars.

He said he is not expecting a legislative solution soon. He noted that the last copyright act was passed in 1976, and that “they started working on that in the 1950s, and so we got 1950s copyright law in 1976.”

I think you know where iskm stands, from the perspective of both a photographer and an artist ...  
Observe. Slow down. Shoot. Submit!