From: Sandy King (sanking@hubcap.clemson.edu)
Date: 03/06/01-11:47:40 PM Z
Gene,
You are absolutely right. Judy has a perfect right to cut up her own
magazines without risk of "being torn apart by the beasts." The message
suggesting that this was vandalism was in reponse to a misunderstanding on
my part. My apologies to Judy and to the list.
Sandy King
>
>
>Sandy
>
>
>You are confusing cutting out a picture from a source owned by someone
>else with cutting out a picture from a magazine owned by yourself. Judy
>did not say she was going into the NY Public Library to razor out pages
>from the collection. I'd agree with you there that it would be a crime
>worthy of being torn apart by wild beasts.
>
>
>The fact that someone cut out a wonderful image from an old Camera Work
>but somehow that particular magazine wound up in your possession because
>you bought it for a buck at a local thrift shop may be terribly
>disapointing but it hardly counts as any sort of crime.
>
>
>A contemorary magazine you buy is by definition ephemeral. Cut it up or
>throw it out is all the same. Just because libraries maintain back issues
>or someone finds it a valuable collectable at the time or 30 years later
>is interesting to many and a source of revenue to some but not much else.
>
>
>All Judy implied was that she cuts up the magazines she buys. So what?
>
>
>Gene Robkin
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Sandy King
>To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>Sent: 3/6/01 11:57 AM
>Subject: Re: Copyright Law Violation - was Re: book
>
>
>Judy Seigel wrote:
>>
>
>
>>I myself tear pages out of art magazines to keep as reference. That's
>what
>>they're for.
>
>
>Judy,
>
>
>I think that is called vandalism (and the accumulated loss is great),
>putting aside other self-serving pronouncemnts. Unfortunately, not hard
>to
>find the manifestation of your attidude in lots of vintage photography
>magazines.
>
>
>Sandy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Sandy
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/02/01-09:55:24 AM Z CST