NEWS: Copyright and Doodling—Child Harrassed For Being Kid

CULTURE: Copyright and Doodling—Child Harrassed For Being Kid

While at an exhibition in the North Carolina Museum of Art, Julia Illana, a second grader, was told by a security guard that the young artist couldn’t copy the Matisse painting into her notebook because it “broke copyright.”

How has our copyright system gotten so corrupt, fascist, and cold that security guards, even if they are mistaken, can tell children they canÂ’t scribble in their notebooks?

You . Have. got. to. be. kidding. me.

That guard must just have a bad and mistimed sense of humour. Seriously.

Stoopid. Like a 2nd grader would understand anything other than they were being intimidated by a uniformed authority figure.
That guy oughta be reprimanded on the basis of being a complete and utter douchebag.

Umm... it seems like the gaurd just didn't know what he was talking about. I don't think this museum accident is the beggining of a new facist regime.. but thats just me. I don't normally post but that comment is really reaching for conclusions.

How can a security guard at a gallery not know anything about copyright? And why would he think it was ok to run around enforcing rules he *Does Not Understand*

GAAAAHHHH!

Also, mad props to the second grader sketching Matisse.

EDITED TO ADD:
There is a clause in copyright refering to how long copyright can be held valid. I believe (though I may be wrong) that copyright expires one hundred years after the creation of the work, or fifty years after the creator's death. Someone care to confirm or elucidate this for me?

[Edited on Jan 10, 2005 5:14AM]

Really? For real? I mean, I see people sketching statues and things at museums all of the time. Weird.

If you are taking Copyright Law advice from a Secuirty Guard, then you are plain old stupid. Just stupid.


Some wage slave who could not get into the police acadamy is not the person you should be listening to for Copyright law advice.

Ok,

here's a couple of questions.. Firstly, Matisse died in 1954, which means that his works are still under copyright (at least in Europe, in US the rules are a bit more complicated (cf. this)).
Secondly, does sketching a work violate copyright? The basic answers is yes because ithe outccome is a derivate work. Never the less, it is very apparent that this is actually covered by fair use and therefore not illegal. Thus, the goon was not only stupid in PR-sense but also factually wrong.

Boy, can we figure out anyother ways to criminalize childhood??? Just give her some mood altering drugs like ritalin, that should help surpress any creative though, or otherwise subversive activities..... (this message brought to you by Swiss pharmaceutical
company Novartis)
don't forget to thank your congressional lobbyist.

the copyright system is far from corrupt. it pisses me off when, every day, people bring in professional photos and studio portraits and try to copy them. i am noit protecting the guard, he is a dumbass.

"How has our copyright system gotten so corrupt, fascist, and cold that security guards, even if they are mistaken, can tell children they canÂ’t scribble in their notebooks?"

no. the guard was just an idiot.

"our copyright system" is the only reason you even HAVE artists.

don't forget that.

Yeah, while the security guard was (obviously) a dope, no real harm done. I sketch in the museums in Manhattan all the time and have never gotten so much as a dirty look. Maybe it was just a case of a different environment? Lack in education?

Er, what proportion of the great masters lived in a time of copyright law?

i am not sure on paintings, but i believe a photograph's copyright expires after 30 years... at least that's what we're trained to look for at photoshops when somebody brings in a copyrighted picture.

Wikipedia says:

Though I dunno if this reflects recent attempts to transfer/prolong copyright (and the ludicrous gene patenting currently going on).

On the bright side, some benevolent copyright extension:

Was it his first day? He was ignorant, perhaps, of the copyright rules but surely the girl wasn't the first person he'd seen copying art? Or is he just a mean-spirited arsehole who enjoys spoiling others' amusement and wanted to see the girl cry while?

Bit harsh, brother. Aren't we stereotyping here a wee bit?

I agree with the majority of the statements in here The security officer was obviously an idiot. I spent about 5 years in the security industry and the VAST majority of the people that are hired to do some of these jobs are idiots.
I fired so many people. You would not beleive how some people start to act when they put on a "uniform". I fired a guy once because he was involved in a traffic accident, on his way to work, so he was in his "uniform" and he got out and threatened to arrest this young girl who rear ended him!!!!!! The complete and total idiocy of the people who are in this business is what lead me to just get the hell out of it before I went crazy.

If you allow 8 year olds to doodle the THE TERRORISTS HAVE WON. I want to see a war againts crayons now. Crayola - part of the axis of evil along with Sculpy and Lego.

The only thing this story needs is a taser


EDIT: If Crayola Lawyers are reading this I don't really think that you're a terrorist support front. I love Crayola, and would buy it if I had kids. Please don't sue me.

[Edited on Jan 10, 2005 by demetrius_z]

My god, this ranks right up there among the stupidest things I have ever heard of. Children with an interest in art are rare enough without idiots like this guard harassing them for something that anyone with a functioning brain could tell is legal and acceptable. Fuck.

You know, I was thinking of a quote that might be applicable to this story, but I wouldn't want to infringe on anyone's copyright by posting it here.

Now watch that kid sells her doodles for millions of dollars. You'll all feel pretty stupid.

i'm getting this tattoo'd on my back.

lol...

Even if it were illegal to copy paintings that would have had their copyright expire anyways, I suspect the differences between the original and the scetched copy would be significant enough for the sketch to be considered an original piece of art, not bound to any legal contract in relation to the original...

Unless of course she was using tracing paper pressed against the original - and then the problem would be damaging the original :/

I recently visited Paris, and in the Lourve, I found the art students that were using the masterpieces as inspiration much more interesting than than what was on the walls.