So, one day last week I wander into Beaver Creek Hats & Leathers at 36 East Broadway on the south side of Jackson Hole’s town square (WY 83001).

I see a couple of chairs, much like that in the following photo:

Upon one of those chairs is a white card upon which is written “In respect to the artist – NO PHOTOS”.

Now what gets me is how on earth this can be a matter of respect to the artist. Under what colour sky does the person live who believes that photography of an artist’s publicly exhibited work (and no doubt dissemination thereof) can show disrespect to the artist?

Respect would be taking photos, blogging about how great the artist’s work was, and introducing an ever larger audience to the the artist. This no doubt helps establish the artist as the recognised author of their unique style and creates considerable demand for their work by those who appreciate it.

I asked a sales assistant in the shop why the sign was there and he suggested it was to reduce the likelihood of the work being copied, i.e. to maintain the exclusivity of this form of furniture to the artists who made it.

Bit of a cleft stick there really eh? And a double edged sword to boot. Want to help potential buyers discover this unique work, but at the same time need to avoid tipping off the competition to preserve its uniqueness. If only the state could grant them a monopoly they’d not have to take such measures. But then how could any artist be so selfish as to demand that no other crafstman be permitted to reproduce their style of furniture? Is the world not big enough? Can their furniture really be so easily reproduced? Is competition intrinsically unfair? Is facilitation of competition via inevitably promotional photography disrespectful to the artist?

The thing is, if I had no respect for the artist or was in league with a competitor with no scruples about imitation I’d take a fricking photo anyway – sign or no sign. So all the ‘no photos’ sign ends up doing is irritating people otherwise respectful of the artist who’d love to take a snap to show a friend who they’d know would simply love such a great piece of furniture. More specifically in my case, it also irritates copyright abolitionists who happen to be passing through.

The sign actually shows disrespect to the public, and casts the artist or their agent in a very poor light of anal retentive churlishness.

The funny thing is the artist aka John Bickner, Jr. exhibits his artwork worldwide, so he evidently wants it to be seen, but perhaps he wants fine control over which galleries get to exhibit it, and who precisely gets to see it. Thus uncontrolled photography and photos spreading across the Internet dilute this control and must be prohibited. Doesn’t make sense to me. I have deep linked to the photo above (I dare not copy it, for that would be disrespectful – and probably illegal). We can republish images via deep-links, but we can’t copy the images – it’s insane. And madder still, you get anal retentiveness from Kodak who even take pains to detect and thwart deep-linking to three more examples of the chairs in question.

Considering the rights of the matter (and not the privileges), the shop operates as a public gallery with the right to refuse admission or to eject anyone who doesn’t adhere to their conditions (being regardless of race, etc.). Now this means that anything that is available to the senses of the public visitor is available to be recorded by that visitor (and subsequently performed or reproduced at their leisure, whether privately or publicly) – unless of course, the visitor contracted otherwise prior to entry (entry does not constitute agreement). A shop can eject a visitor for taking photos (if they require this constraint), but they cannot claim ownership of those photos, nor obtain their destruction, unless the visitor took photos of material that was not made available to them (they broke a seal on a book, say). So, I was within my rights to take photos of the chairs (until requested to leave the shop) and publish them on this blog. The only disrespect shown would be to the author of the request against photos. It would not have been shown to the artist of the chair – even if they were the same person. In turn, the request against photos on the pretext of it being disrespectful to the artist shows disrespect to myself as a potential customer or member of the artist’s audience.

If you exhibit to the public, please, respect the public and don’t try to pretend that their photography is disrespectful to the artist. If you want them to abstain from promoting you and your work in order to preserve a niche market then that’s up to you, but be honest about it, e.g. write instead “We do not wish to expand production and already have sufficient custom, so please refrain from taking photos of our chairs to show to your friends as this is liable to increase demand to such an extent that competition results and the uniqueness and value of our product is reduced”. It still doesn’t make much sense though.

I could have walked out of the shop with a good feeling about the chairs and a lot of respect for the artists who made them, but the sign’s disrespect for me queered that pitch considerably.

So, dear artist, being your best customer:

1. Your audience is happy to pay you for your work
2. So deal with it, don’t prosecute it
3. Copies of your work cost nothing, so don’t try to charge for them – they are not ‘lost sales’
4. Copies are your promiscuous promoters – don’t encumber them
5. The bigger your audience the bigger their budget
6. Give them a better bargain
7. Art for money, money for art

I’m pleased to read Bob Blakley’s latest blog entry:
The New Studio

Welcome to the second age of enlightenment Bob, where artists cease their mercenary suspension of each others’ liberty via the unethical privileges of patent and copyright.

The original task: Find accommodation near a particular postcode.

So I bring up Google Maps and bung it in. I have a scan around, and “Ooh look at the lovely countryside”.

“Hmmn. What a nice forest.”

Looks like someone’s carved themselves out a nice little hidey hole.

Probably some old hunting lodge or manor.

On closer inspection it looks a bit untidy to say the least.

What the heck is that big white fallout area?

And the square perimeter fence looks like they don’t want any visitors.

Maximum zoom.

What I thought was perhaps a private hunting lodge with landscaped gardens, or even a clay pigeon range, is beginning to look very fishy. And no, I don’t mean like a ‘private fishing lake’.

It’s on ‘Clogs Bank’, but Google doesn’t really turn much up for that, except that it’s so called because the Button Oak wives could hear the clogs of their miner husband as they returned from Kinlet pit, and they knew to put on the potatoes!

I have a look around for Kinlet and “Button Bridge Lane’, but apart from the old disused mine “Kinlet Pit” there aren’t many leads. “Charcoal burners used to live in tent-like shelters called booths or boothen, while they were burning. This was the origin of the surname Booton and Button Oak and Button Bridge”

At least I’ve now found that I’m dealing with the Wyre Forest. I check out various forest visitor centres, but there seems to be no mention of manors, hunting lodges, etc.

There is another secluded estate in the forest, so I think that may give me a lead. I find a planning document.

It’s highlighted as a point of interest here (if you zoom in and turn on hybrid).

I find out it’s Coppice Gate Holiday Park but this doesn’t turn up too much apart from a nearby walk.

I decide to use the Coppice Gate Holiday Park postcode of “DY12 3DP” to have a look at the Ordnance Survey map.

I notice that the area of interest is labelled ‘Birchen Vallets’. Google turns up nothing particularly remarkable apart from some botanical field trips.

I have a go with Postensplain.

Pay dirt!

Have a look at the first link for the Harlequins orienteering group’s report on that neck of the woods.

Suffers from a huge out of bounds area in the middle – A W.W.II rocket testing station the inner sanctum if which is still in use. Most of the out of bounds is a safety buffer zone.

I just knew that place looked a bit odd. That white area is precisely the kind of scorched earth effect a horizontally tested rocket engine would produce.

Furthermore, the three paddocks or enclosures look as if they’ve been deliberately reserved for a long term test. Ideas anyone? Why would you mow most of the range apart from three sections? The middle one of which look’s newer (or most severely stunted).

Finally, it looks like there might be a missile silo towards the top, with a tarmac side entrance. Quite a lot of tarmac everywhere suggests quite a few vehicles running around – or a few with heavy loads (once taking earth away for disposal elsewhere…).

So, if I can find a nuclear missile launch facility completely by accident, presumably the Soviets found them decades ago through intent scrutiny. I suppose this is why there’s no point keeping satellite imagery secret, the only people who don’t know where the silos are, are the civilians – and at this rate we’re not going to be very far behind. Perhaps all the silos will be relocated underneath public swimming pools a la Thunderbirds?

No doubt there’s a website devoted to the weird and wonderful things you can find via Google Maps, but I’ll leave that to you to find.

I’m just surprised at how quickly one can go from “curious bit of forest” to “rocket testing station” simply by using Google.

It’s also surprising how much time one can waste being distracted by supposedly hidden facilities in the middle of forests when one simply wants to find a B&B.

Intellectual property is accompanied by natural rights and unnatural privileges.

Different things happen in different jurisdictions (WIPO notwithstanding).

• Some rights are protected, some aren’t.
• Some privileges are granted, some aren’t.

Examples of rights: life, privacy, truth, liberty.
Examples of privileges (suspension of others’ rights): copyright, patent.

I’m an IP naturalist. How about you?

• IP maximalists want as many rights and privileges as they can get, and ever more draconian enforcement.
• IP conservatives think everything’s working just fine, but for a few tweaks here and there, and the need for better law schools.
• IP reformists sense problems, but aren’t sure what they are or how to fix them.
• IP nostalgists think things have gone too far, and want to remove the last few decades of revisions to IP law from the statute books.
• IP fundamentalists worship Thomas Jefferson and are waiting for his resurrection.
• IP constitutionalists believe all solutions lie in a better understanding of the intentions of the founding fathers.
• IP nihilists believe that it’s all moot and don’t care what the law says, that the diffusion of information is as amenable to control as the tide to Canute. All legislation is either in conflict with reality, ineffective, or redundant.
• IP pragmatists are simply using licences to achieve their preferred ideology.
• IP naturalists argue from an ethical perspective that all rights should be protected and all privileges abolished.
• IP communists find privileges abhorrent, and even consider rights secondary in favour of a communitarian social contract to oblige the sharing of art and knowledge, free of commercial consideration (although tolerating any commerce that survives).
• IP anarchists do what the heck they want and will use technology to subvert or bypass undesirable constraints for the benefit of themselves and others.
• IP extremists consider violation of IP rights and privileges equivalent to terrorism and want violators to be treated as terrorists.
• IP authorialists believe all problems result from the author’s surrender of their privileges to their publishers, that if all privileges were returned to the authors and made inalienable as if rights, that no author could then authorise their sociopathic abuse.

Any more?

From Creative Commons’ weblog:
The Netherlands is the first country to bring such a collaboration between a music copyright organization and Creative Commons, a move applauded by Lawrence Lessig, the founder and chairman of Creative Commons International, as “the first step towards more freedom of choice in the field of exploiting music works in the digital world.”

“Freedom of choice”?

Gosh. How laudable.

“Ambassadeur, wiz zese Ferrero Rocher you are really spoiling us!”

Thanks to CC, musicians can now have a free choice in deciding whether to prosecute their fans or let them share their music without such persecution. And so, at last, collection societies can now more easily recognise that some of their members may be a bit limp in the hang ‘em and flog ‘em department.

You see how subtly the sly sinuation slips in? That the manumission of freedom is rightfully given to the copyright holder – not their suffering fans who remain, just as before, shackled not to share and imprisoned if they do – unless of course, the musician they so adore deigns to grant them clemency, if the criminals they catch have made no attempt to profit from their copying.

Remember kids, not all freedom is good. It’s great from the slave owner’s perspective that they get the freedom of choice to decide whether to capitally punish escaped slaves, just let them off with a less severe warning, or even to set them free to reduce overheads during times of drought.

So, why the heck should anyone rejoice that the choice to prosecute is no longer in the hands of the collection society, but the musician?

Sank you professeur Lessig, for letting ze kind musician have ze freedom of choice to prosecute us instead of zeir evil record label. You are really spoiling us.

Let’s rejoice when no-one has the freedom to, let alone freedom of choice to, prosecute fans for sharing a musician’s published works.

So, what, if anything, has actually changed?

Yesterday:

Musicians can publish their music fully copyrighted and receive revenue via collection societies. Their fans share their music with impunity, but insignificant risk of jail terms.

Today:

Musicians can publish their music CC-NC and receive revenue via collection societies. Their fans share their music with impunity, but no risk of jail terms.

I don’t know who is most overjoyed by the news.

Here is my estimated breakdown of enjoyment:

1. Creative Commons 60%
2. Collection societies 30%
3. Musicians 9%
4. Those sharing the music and risking jail terms 1%
5. Those who like the music 0%
6. Those paying the collected fees 0%

As for economic impact, well, 0% really. Why on earth is it going to change?

• Musicians who still believe in copyright, but don’t really want to sue their fans, will continue as before.
• Musicians who wish their music to be promoted far and wide without let or hindrance will continue to do everything possible to escape the predations of record labels and collection societies.

Meanwhile, the board at Buma/Stemra has been persuaded that there are many musicians who continue to believe that bars and other commercial establishments should be prosecuted for promoting their work without paying for the privilege, even if they no longer think their fans should be.

Creative Commons continue to find mugs who still think copyright can be made to work if only it’s kind to kids, but cruel to commerce.

There is of course, no compromise. Either you believe in monopolies or you don’t.

The intermediate solution?

Nullification via licence, e.g. copyleft.

The inescapable conclusion?

ABOLITION.

A Better Allegory

Imagine in the movie Aliens, the adversary is actually publishers’ lucrative copyright legislation that infests human culture, admired by lone lawyers with dollars in their eyes who’d harness it for their own ends:

Ripley: I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.
Hudson: Fuckin’ A…
Burke: Ho-ho-hold on, hold on one second. This installation has a substantial dollar value attached to it.
Ripley: They can BILL me.

I, naturally, identify with Ripley, and suggest that Burke can be ably played by Lessig, with every other draconian publisher and their lawyers, the aliens. Let us not forget the innocent families already wiped out, or cocooned and still awaiting digestion by predatory litigation.

Auditions for Hudson’s part are invited from members of this audience.