I think that Copyright, while it gives me an unhappy feeling, can also go a long way to speak of the changing meaning of images.
I mean as the book explains more of the problems that the law encounters involving intellectual property and ownership, the history of Copyright law is inadvertently giving a live commentary to how people view images and their contextual meaning of the time.
For instance, the copyright issues involving Korda's photograph of Che Guevara only came about because of the cultural meaning the image was given. As time went on, the meaning of the image has been enhanced and changed into something that Korda isn't in control of.
Otto Wacker's forgeries of Van Gogh paintings on the other hand, in its copyright case, spoke about the value of the idea of paintings as well as the physical presence of paintings. Moving to Lugosi Dracula, an idea spun around an individual and created a new image to represent an old tale.
So while each of these instances involved a mess of legal issues, these issues arose because of the way that images change meaning and how they truly can take on a life of their own.
Copyright law ends up chronicling instances where the meaning and use of images are changed in new ways and can speak volumes about the cultural value of these images.
Confusing, but in a way an entertaining attempt to keep a lid on the use of images.
-Thomas Holland
No comments:
Post a Comment