A Conversation Between Gladwell and Park:
I walked into MoMA today. An Andy Warhol portrait of Campbell’s Soup Cans from 1962 hovered over my head. The different labels of the Campbell cans creates the defining image of the Warhol copyright. The 32 different canvases of soup cans are varied only by the label on the front of each can. Warhol points out in his work that he “mimicked the repetition and uniformity of advertising by carefully reproducing the same image across each individual canvas” (MoMA). This is ironic. From personal experience, I have seen the Campbell soup can in numerous movies and TV shows. Whereas the Campbell soup company should be getting publicity for the showing of their brand, it is Warhol who has achieved the copyright …show more content…
Tim Park tells the reader of what if scenarios where copyright laws don’t exist. Focusing on the intellectual property of the authors rather than musicians, Tim uses his personal experience as evidence to support his claim that copyright creates the status and money of an artist. Harry Potter is the answer to why copyright laws are still in place. Quite a pathetic piece of evidence. Gladwell was much more evidence based on his claims. But, the job of an author is at state without copyright laws supporting their work as their own. It is part of the artist’s rights to be supported in this way and keeps their legacy alive long after they’ve died to leave a sense of immortality in their work. It’s all about money, isn’t it? Writers seldom write about the craft. They write to achieve the widest spectrum of audience and maybe one day, if they pray to God enough, receive the glorious copyright to their work. Imagine receiving royalties for your work every time someone wants to use it in some way. Sounds beautiful, doesn’t it? It also gives the artist status in their field of artistry. They become a recognized figure in …show more content…
Instead, they frequently take it and use it for their own personal achievement. My work belongs to me and nobody else. Sounds childish in all honesty. But, as shown in “Something Borrowed” people can be quite pissy when not given the credit they deserve for their own intellectual property. Intellectual property can be summed up as copyright laws set forth so that individuals can have an ownership of their work. This is not the case with creative property though. Gladwell states that is “equally dangerous to be overly vigilant in policing creative expression” (7) claiming a different way copyright law needs to function. Not everything is black and white with the law. Artists need to gain creative expression through the influence of other artists because art is a collaborative process. “Copying could go too far” (7) Gladwell says, but at the same time, this influence of other artists shows a claim that songs inspired became “urgent and brilliant and new” (7). People take things too personally or feel violated as Dorothy Lewis states when the work is claimed by more than one person. Intellectual property should thrive in the same way that creative property does and not be so strict with copyright laws. Gladwell points out that Lewis felt “violated” that her life was plagiarized for a broadway play. Most artists feel a sense of violation when what they believe is theirs is taken and used for another collaborative creation of art. The idea of
I walked into MoMA today. An Andy Warhol portrait of Campbell’s Soup Cans from 1962 hovered over my head. The different labels of the Campbell cans creates the defining image of the Warhol copyright. The 32 different canvases of soup cans are varied only by the label on the front of each can. Warhol points out in his work that he “mimicked the repetition and uniformity of advertising by carefully reproducing the same image across each individual canvas” (MoMA). This is ironic. From personal experience, I have seen the Campbell soup can in numerous movies and TV shows. Whereas the Campbell soup company should be getting publicity for the showing of their brand, it is Warhol who has achieved the copyright …show more content…
Tim Park tells the reader of what if scenarios where copyright laws don’t exist. Focusing on the intellectual property of the authors rather than musicians, Tim uses his personal experience as evidence to support his claim that copyright creates the status and money of an artist. Harry Potter is the answer to why copyright laws are still in place. Quite a pathetic piece of evidence. Gladwell was much more evidence based on his claims. But, the job of an author is at state without copyright laws supporting their work as their own. It is part of the artist’s rights to be supported in this way and keeps their legacy alive long after they’ve died to leave a sense of immortality in their work. It’s all about money, isn’t it? Writers seldom write about the craft. They write to achieve the widest spectrum of audience and maybe one day, if they pray to God enough, receive the glorious copyright to their work. Imagine receiving royalties for your work every time someone wants to use it in some way. Sounds beautiful, doesn’t it? It also gives the artist status in their field of artistry. They become a recognized figure in …show more content…
Instead, they frequently take it and use it for their own personal achievement. My work belongs to me and nobody else. Sounds childish in all honesty. But, as shown in “Something Borrowed” people can be quite pissy when not given the credit they deserve for their own intellectual property. Intellectual property can be summed up as copyright laws set forth so that individuals can have an ownership of their work. This is not the case with creative property though. Gladwell states that is “equally dangerous to be overly vigilant in policing creative expression” (7) claiming a different way copyright law needs to function. Not everything is black and white with the law. Artists need to gain creative expression through the influence of other artists because art is a collaborative process. “Copying could go too far” (7) Gladwell says, but at the same time, this influence of other artists shows a claim that songs inspired became “urgent and brilliant and new” (7). People take things too personally or feel violated as Dorothy Lewis states when the work is claimed by more than one person. Intellectual property should thrive in the same way that creative property does and not be so strict with copyright laws. Gladwell points out that Lewis felt “violated” that her life was plagiarized for a broadway play. Most artists feel a sense of violation when what they believe is theirs is taken and used for another collaborative creation of art. The idea of