What Killed Postmodernism?

Written by Robert Nagle
Published July 10, 2004
page 1 | 2

This issue has become very real to me recently. I'm working on a story project that is a set of variations on a mainstream Hollywood movie. The film is obscure, and this probably is the first website about it, and yet, so many extraneous and self-defeating issues have cropped up. Do I have the right to use photo stills from other websites? Do I have the right to use the title of the film in my website's title? I had never intended it to be a commercial work (I slap creative content licenses on everything I create), but what if someday I decided to try publishing it commercially? A friend of mine pointed out that no self-respecting publication would touch this project because it would mean first clearing the rights from Bertelsmann/Time/Warner. Maybe this empire would grant limited commercial rights if certain fees were paid. Hey, I wouldn't mind so much if the director were the one pocketing the check, but more than likely, the check would go to underwrite the empire's intimidation machine. Last weekend I had talked to a friend who had just signed a 4 book deal with a publisher of romance fiction. It was her big break. One of her books had the words Jedi and Ewoks title; she prayed that her publishing house could secure the rights from lucasarts to use those words in the title. Fortunately, her publishing company is used to clearing rights, and so she'll probably gain clearance (after a fee is paid). But nowadays just to use or cite a corporate-produced work makes you subject to tribute. This drag on artists makes the already abysmal system of content production even more abysmal. In many ways the SCO-ization of media companies makes media companies better at protecting artistic rights than producing art in the first place.

In the meantime, I look at my creative projects and ask: should I bleach cultural references? People ask: what killed postmodernism? My answer: big media and its attempt to exert ownership rights over popular culture and (by implication) the imagination of artists. From corporate postmodernism arises a desire for independence and ultimately cultural isolationism.

page 1 | 2
Keep reading for information and comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own!
What Killed Postmodernism?
Published: July 10, 2004
Type:
Section: Culture
Filed Under: Books: Arts, Books: Business, Video: Television
Writer: Robert Nagle
Robert Nagle's BC Writer page
Robert Nagle's personal site
Spread the Word
Like this article?
Email this
Submit to del.icio.us Save to del.icio.us
RSS Feeds
All RSS Feeds (240+)
Comments on this article
BC articles by Robert Nagle
Books: Arts
Books: Business
Video: Television
All Culture Articles
All BC articles
All BC Comments

Comments

#1 — July 10, 2004 @ 10:58AM — Shark

full story

FYI: Pretty significant victory last week re. artists and copyrighted/trademark materials. Check it out; it should warm the postmodern cockles of your heart.

excerpt ---

"A US artist who won a five-year legal battle with toy company Mattel Inc. over his photographs of Barbie dolls has spoken of his joy at the ruling.

Tom Forsythe said he was "amazed and ecstatic" at a court ruling last week that Mattel should reimburse the $1.8m (£1m) he spent defending his work.

Mr Forsythe took photos of Barbie dolls in bizarre and often sexually provocative positions.

A Mattel spokeswoman said they would continue to defend Barbie copyright.

Forsythe said the ruling "sets a new standard for the ability to criticise popular brands and do so without the fear of being sued"."

++ end of excerpt ++



#2 — July 11, 2004 @ 12:38PM — Eric Olsen

Excellent job on very important territory we have been trying to cover all along - personal and immediate is always more effective. Thanks and welcome, Robert!

#3 — October 15, 2004 @ 19:07PM — Robert Nagle [URL]

I just wanted to update my thoughts here. Apparently, the federal court decision about the Wind Done Him Wrong (PDF) court decision covers use of fictional characters for commercial works. So perhaps copyright owners do not have as much veto power as originally supposed.

However, the threat is still there, and in cases where the borrowing is not a reworking of the original content(sampling), you're in uncertain waters.

Want comments emailed to you? No spam, promise! Address:

Add your comment, speak your mind

(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/17302)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.





Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!

Fresh
Articles
Fresh
Comments