'Original' Churchill Art Piece Creates Controversy

'Original' Churchill Art Piece Creates Controversy


http://images.viacomlocalnetworks.com/images_sizedimage_055200404/lg


Feb 24, 2005 8:03 pm US/Mountain
BOULDER, Colo. (CBS4) An exclusive report by CBS4 News indicates embattled University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill may have broken copyright law by making a mirror image of an artist's work and selling it as his own.

Placing Churchill's work beside that of renowned artist Thomas E. Mails and the two look like mirror images. But one is a copyrighted drawing. The other is an autographed print by Churchill.

When CBS4 News reporter Raj Chohan tried to talk to Churchill about a possible copyright infringement, he received an angry response.

The following text is a transcription from CBS4's footage of the exchange between Chohan and Churchill on Thursday in the hallway outside his office.

"Get that camera out of my face," Churchill said.

"This is an artwork we've got called 'Winter Attack.' It looks like it was based on a Thomas Mails painting; it looks like you ripped it off. Can you tell us about that?" Chohan asked.

That prompted Churchill to take a swing at Chohan while he held a stack of papers in his hand.

The exchange continued:

http://news4colorado.com/topstories/local_story_055200531.html

it is very strange. And he tried to sell it as 'authentic native art'

This is not a good sign for the Prof. I bet his tenure will be revoked and he will have to face charges.

Seems like Einstein did that. Kinsey did that. Etc.

Would you people take some art courses already! Or buy a book on this stuff... :P

yes its a witchunt, but what on earth were you doing copying art?

and then sold it as "original" not good Ward!

This guy is just plain bad on a number of levels. We shouldn't defend people blindly.

I think he is an asshat. I don't understand why he was tenured in the first place...but to remove him now would be punishment for free speech so they are stuck with him

I do not think he should be teaching though

YOu are the one who seems to be confused.

I can defend his right to speek and even defend his ideas that were misrepresented and not be defending his charecter.

I dont know the man, I wouldnt dare draw conclusions about him as a person.

All I know is the section of his work spread around in the media didnt mean what they said it meant and that the attempts to get him fired fueled by anger over his remarks is an affront to the idea of free speech.

You need to get over who he is and look at the big picture. It is exactly people like Ward Churchill who test our tolerance of free experession.

but his whole spiel that got him in trouble has been posted over and over again here on DU and it IS NOT being misinterpreted.
He basically said that people who work in finance deserved it, they were 'Little Eichmanns', etc. etc.
It has been posted and he was not taken out of context.

YOu dont like the man, I get that, but clearly there are actual reasons to not like him, why do you cling to the right wing spin?

Yes he COMPARED them to eichman, so to start with you cant just assume he was equating them in every way. He also made it clear he was not arguing that they deserved it, he was laying the groundwork for his case that if the shoe were on the other foot, our pentagon would have had no trouble identifying the towers as valid targets for bombing.

But he never argued that they deserved to die, you are inferring that, and you are wrong for making the assumption. In fact that seems to be to be the exact opposite of what he argued. He was arguing that if the US hadnt done horrible things in the first place and if our corporations and the people in them werent profiting off the death and misery of others, this wouldnt have happened and a whole lot of people who shouldnt have died wouldnt have died.

Perhaps I am wrong, maybe he really does think they deserved to die, it doesnt change the fact that you cant conclude that from what he wrote without jumping to a conclusion.

http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html

As to those in the World Trade Center . . .

Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break.They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" – a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" – counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.

Churchill says that the occupants of the WTC were not innocent. He then says can't think of a better or more effective way of dealing with them than mass murder. It's right there in black and white for crying out loud!

You are desperately trying to spin Churchill's words into something defensible, which they aren't. I agree that he should have free speech, and I don't like the right wing media feeding frenzy that's happening over it, but please don't misrepresent what he said and accuse people who disagree of "clinging to right wing spin". That's just insulting

american imperialism and global arrogance, using our resources and power to do whatever we see fit? and that includes our citizens, willfully going along with it and refusing to see or accept any responsibility for what is done in their name?

OR

basically acknowledging america's bad karma.

we've done a lot of bad shit. that doesn't excuse what happened on 9/11, but goddammit that attack should've served as a wake up call; instead we have retreated even further into our shells.

It is clear to me that the art prints are the same. He then must face the charge.

to stop defending his freedom of speech.

This is a witch hunt, that fact cannot be ignored because hes an easy person to condemn and it seems he has done some things wrong.

You and I both know they arent after him because of plagerism.

The prints in guestion are simular, if not the same. Being sold with his signature. It is still illegal.

if that were true, it would have been plagiarism for Warhol to copy the Campbell's Soup can. Instead, it is a theory of art that is perfectly familiar to anyone who has studies the history of art (or art theory) in a more than cursory cursory way during the past twenty years.

By this kind of logic, Gus Van Sandt's ill-advised remake of Psycho, which used the exact script and angles, would be plagiarism. It was not; it was merely an inferior remake, like Prof. Churchill's painting.

Psycho was remade with the consent of the rights holders - the studio. This was not.

You cannot make a copy of a copyrighted work and sell it, regardless of what it is (book, screenplay, movie, artwork).

which is what it sounds like he did. The holder of the original copyright holds the rights to all future copies and also MODIFICATIONS of the original.

This is reallllly basic copyright law -- 101 stuff, and any professor worth his salt should have NO problem knowing, understanding and following the law on that. There's no excuse whatsoever.

It's one of the five express rights the copyright holder has.

It is a new way of envisioning the scene--in color, from the other side, in a different style. Think of it as Roshomon--a scene, repeated, with similarities, but different.

It's too bad philosophical inquiry of postmodernism seems to have passed us by. It was a shining moment in art, literature, and philosophy.

Open an image of Mails work in Photoshop.
Open an image of Churchill's work in Photoshop.
Flip one of the images right to left.
Scale the two images so that they are the same size, if they are not already.
Copy one image and paste it over the other, 50% transparent.

The two images are obviously the same.

Churchill's is a copy of Mails work, so closely so that he must have used tracing paper or mechanical copying aids.

You don't have to take my word for it. It's easy to check this for yourself.

I chose one that would be familiar to people who don't study art.

In literature, look at Kathy Acker's work. In "fine" art, look at Warhol's art. Look at Kruger's work. Look at Sherrie Levine's work. The list is endless, really, but those are the first three who pop into my head.

There is an entire filed of philosophical inquiry out there that addresses postmodern appropriation quite specifically; it also happens in art history and literary studies. See, for example, Hal Foster, Craig Owens, Rosalind Krauss, Richard Hertz's, etc. numerous volumes on the subject. All this work comes out of the 1960s in France, where Foucault's "What is an Author?" and Barthes' "The Death of the Author" initiated the investigations into the "author-function" (to use Foucault's terminology), the sovereignty of author-ity, and questions of artistic "mastery."

It should also be noted that this is not a "copy" of the original in the true sense of the word. It is a colored inversion of the original, which makes it--ta da!--original itself. It is a step perfectly familiar to those who have any knowledge of pomo theory or art, but it certainly provides firepower to those who want to find new ways--and even more baseless ones--to critique Prof. Churchill.

"if that were true, it would have been plagiarism for Warhol to copy the Campbell's Soup can."

No. It is not plagiarism to make a painting of a soup can. A painting and a soup can are two entirely different things. It WOULD be illegal to make copies of the Campbell's label and place them on your own soup cans, or to sell the label design to a canner as your own design.

You may argue that exactly reproducing someone’s ink drawing and changing the color of the ink makes it a “new” work. I disagree with you, and I think you will find that this is insufficient to get around copyright law.
He took someone else’s composition, reproduced it, and sold it as his own; the color of the ink and mirror-image are trivial alterations.

how about Warhol's "Brillo Box" which is--ta da!--a Brillo Box, but bigger!

Or even better, see if you can find this on Google--Sherie Levine's famous photograph "Untitled (After Edmund Weston)," which is a photograph of a photograph by Edmund Weston that re-claims the image for feminist inquiry. I don't know whether it's online or not, but if it is, it's a perfect example of what I am talking about.

At any rate, these conversations are happening at different discursive registers, none of which is inherently better or worse than another. I am thinking of this within the traditions of my disciplines, which are feminist/postmodernist/humanities. Others are looking at it from a legal perspective or something else. Fine.

I'm not trying to judge the merits of Churchill's work, but I am trying to situate his actions within the scope of debates about authority, mastery, and appropriation that emerged in the late 60s and have continued in academia and the arts with greater and lessor fervor since then.

-sheer perfection, it does not get any better than this.

but their are bigger scum to fry than some nutjob professor

This painting business happened years ago, what does it have to do with his teaching schedule?

Have I clarified to your satisfaction?

But, no one sued him for copying Monets.

Aren't they stretching just a bit to get this guy?

when you are learning to paint, or as a hobby.
It's not OK to copy someone else's art and sell it as your original artwork. It is similar to copying another's novel and selling it as your own work. It is both dishonest and illegal.

If you are a tenured professor and are proven guilty of copying another’s work and selling it for profit, you can reasonably expect to loose your job.
This is true even if the work in question is not related to your field of teaching.

If it were proved he really plagiarized someone's writings on the history of genocide and political dirty tricks (his field of expertise), I'd say fire him. However, that's not the case here.

Since painting is obviously a sideline (read hobby, even one that occasionally makes some money for him), I don't see how this directly impacts his fitness to continue teaching in his field.

Winston Churchill also made a few quid from vending his rather derivative landscapes and still-lifes. No one called for his ouster from No. 10 Downing St. over it.

I didn't like his "Little Eichmanns" comment either. But, the picture copy imbroglio is no ground to oust him.

He claimed to have a minor in art from Sangamon and experience teaching various topics in art and art history.

Sounds that way to me.

Perhaps, then, you can explain to me why they really want to destroy him? Is it his writing and speaking about the still taboo topic of mass murder and theft of the Americas? Or, is it his effective efforts to educate the public about COINTELPRO-style dirty tricks? I would suspect that this campaign is to some degree driven by the latter, and this rather sophisticated blackball campaign is evidence of it. What say you?

Again, art and art history aren't his professional field, so I say the painting thing isn't proper grounds for his dismissal from an academic post.

Again, damn him for his WTC statement, if you like, but don't go looking for pretexts.

No, I can't explain to you why "they" want to destroy him. His detractors are a diverse bunch. I won't speculate about the origins and motivations behind the AIM feud. For the Horowitz clan, attacking Ward Churchill is part of an agenda to purge academia of liberals and leftists. More broadly they seek to discredit leftists. They've focused on Churchill because he presents an easy target. Other rightwing groups and individual commentators have jumped on the bandwagon for that same reason, that they want to discredit leftists and Churchill presents an easy target.

There is a psychological component to much of the criticism of Churchill, a persecution complex that is evident in many of the right's recent popular campaigns. There is also a definite political advantage for the Republican Party, and it may be that some of its operatives have encouraged the ridicule of Churchill. I don't have any evidence of that. It may well be an ogranic development representing a congruence of forces within the conservative movement and the current political climate.

The still taboo topic of mass murder and theft of the Americas? I don't think so. Certainly not in academic circles. I have several books on my shelves that document mass murders of Native Americans and the appropriation of Native American lands. There's nothing especially controversial about that. The claim of genocide may be a bit controversial to some scholars, but an honest appraisal of the historical record with an intent to establish that a policy of genocide had been carried out would hardly be considered taboo. In academia plagiarism is taboo. Misrepesenting data is taboo. Failure to consider prior works in a field may be a taboo, or just a major faux pas. Discussions of crimes against humanity are not taboo.

And among the general public? I actually believe that popular understandings of American history are more enlightened now than they were 50 years ago. There is of course a rightwing backlash to recent ideas, and that plays into some criticisms of Churchill. I do not believe that silencing discussion about the history of injustices committed against Native Americans is a primary motive of Churchill's prominent critics.

His effective efforts to educate the public about COINTELPRO-style dirty tricks? The effectiveness of Churchill's efforts to educate the public on any topic is dubious. Yes, there are those who are seeking to disrupt his efforts to educate the public, such as they are. Conspiratorial thinking is not required to see that, as many of them are quite explicit in stating that intention. As for educating the public about COINTELPRO in particular, I would suggest that instead of Churchill one should look into the name Frank Church.

Again, art and art history aren't his professional field, so I say the painting thing isn't proper grounds for his dismissal from an academic post.. Again, he claimed on his resume to have a minor in art and experience teaching art history and painting. So whether his art fraud is grounds for dismissal is a matter for the Regents of the University of Colorado to decide, but if we're just bsing, I hardly think its irrelevant.

Again, damn him for his WTC statement, if you like. I don't believe I've explicitly done so, but okay, I condemn Ward Churchill's polemic entitled "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens." I think the person who wrote that showed an appalling contempt for his readers and for humanity.

But don't go looking for pretexts. Hmmm. Here's the thing. I actually care about certain issues like freedom of expression, academic freedom, and advancing a progressive liberal agenda. I have defended Churhill's free speech rights, quite vigorously. I have defended the principle of academic freedom as it applies to Churchill, though not as vigorously, and it now seems to me that if the decision is made to revoke his tenure, it may possibly be for good cause. I simply don't know. I continue to advance a progressive liberal agenda, and for that reason I have and will from time to time register my opinion on the political significance of the Churchill imbroglio. In a nutshell, my opinion is this: liberals, progressives, and partisan Democrats in particular have little to gain and much to lose by defending Ward Churchill's views. Defending his right to express his views, and defending him against persecution by government authorities are definitely in order. Attempts to rationalize, explicate or expound upon his views strike me as foolish. Attempts to shield him from lawful public opprobrium strike me as ill-advised.

do not agree that the plagiarism alleged, even if true, is so significant that it justifies dismissal of a tenured professor.

If you want him gone -- and I can understand your desire -- it should be on the basis that his statement was, in of itself, so egregiously destructive that it can not be tolerated and must be censured in the strongest possible terms. That would require a showing of libel or verbal assault rising to a criminal level. If he is not, in fact, convicted for this or a related crime, I do not see that there is adequate grounds to dismiss Professor Churchill.

I apologize for being so legalistic, but I think this is the sort of baseline protection that needs to be applied to freedom of speech matters.

That having been said, I personally find his WTC "little Eichmanns" comment highly offensive, and agree that there is no basis to "rationalize, explicate or expound upon his views." To do so, I believe, compounds the harm that he has caused to the feelings of the families of the 9/11 victims.

I don't believe Churchill's "Chickens" rises to the level of libel or verbal assault in any legal sense. His right to express such opinions should not be infringed upon.

Furthermore, were Churchill to lose his tenured position due to his unpopular views, it would represent a blow to academic freedom with deleterious consequnces for the whole of society.

Plagiarism and fraud, however, of which the instance at hand is but one of a growing list of alleged examples, are grounds for revoking tenure. Systems of tenure vary from place to place, but I would be surprised if that were not also true in Colorado. According to the laws of the Regents, Article 5.C.1:

A faculty member may be dismissed when, in the judgment of the Board of Regents and subject to the Board of Regents constitutional and statutory authority, the good of the university requires such action. The grounds for dismissal shall be demonstrable professional incompetence, neglect of duty, insubordination, conviction of a felony or any offense involving moral turpitude upon a plea or verdict of guilty or following a plea of nolo contendere, or sexual harassment or other conduct which falls below minimum standards of professional integrity.

http://www.cusys.edu/regents/Laws/Article%205C.htm

Absent a criminal conviction or legal finding against Mr. Churchill, what we are talking about here could be cited as professional incompetence, which appears to be the norm in dismissal cases, or falling below minimum standards of professional integrity. The Principles of Academic Freedom adopted by the Regents further adumbrate the professional responsibilities of faculty. The University of Colorado has a policy of Academic Inegrity that applies to students (and one should hope to professors). More appropriately, the faculty handbook has a section on Misconduct in Research and Authorship. The first definition of misconduct given is:

Fabrication, falsification, plagiarism and other forms of misappropriation of ideas, or additional practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted in the research community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research.

Such misconduct may be grounds for dismissal.

I have no firm opinion on whether Churchill should be allowed to continue teaching. I leave it to the Board of Regents to finish their inquiries and take whatever steps they deem appropriate.

for plagiarism. That's a species of fraud.

I think the Regents would find that it stretches the definition of plagiarism too far to try to subsume it as a form of incompetence. To conflate these two, separate grounds is to render each meaningless as a basis for dismissal. There are five distinct grounds laid out in Art. 5.C.1., and it doesn't appear that Churchill falls clearly into any of them, as you cited the regulations:


According to the laws of the Regents, Article 5.C.1:


A faculty member may be dismissed when, in the judgment of the Board of Regents and subject to the Board of Regents constitutional and statutory authority, the good of the university requires such action. The grounds for dismissal shall be demonstrable professional incompetence, neglect of duty, insubordination, conviction of a felony or any offense involving moral turpitude upon a plea or verdict of guilty or following a plea of nolo contendere, or sexual harassment or other conduct which falls below minimum standards of professional integrity.

http://www.cusys.edu/regents/Laws/Article%205C.htm

Because the "plagiarism" alleged didn't even occur within the scope of his teaching duties, and was furthermore even outside of his area of academic expertise -- he doesn't teach painting -- I can't see how this shows professional incompetence.

You argue eloquently, but this just doesn't appear to present grounds for dismissal under the five distinct grounds. The final "other conduct" ground, however, appears to be a catch-all that could be reasonably interpreted to include plagiarism. I would argue, however, that if fraud or copyright infringement are specifically being alleged -- and that isn't entirely clear in this case -- then, a conviction is a prerequisite.

It would be a stretch, I agree. However, "conduct which falls below minimum standards of professional integrity" would apply to cases of plagiarism, fabrication or fraud, as spelled out in faculty handbook under the rubric Misconduct in Research and Authorship. No judicial finding is necessary, but before any sanction can be imposed by the Regents, there must a review process which protects the rights of the accused.

As for the relevance of Churchill's art dealings, it may well be that he does not currently teach painting, and hasn't done so in recent years. Nevertheless, it still may fall within his area of academic expertise, as he himself has claimed in the past (see Churchill, the Man, an Enigma). Teaching art was his first academic gig, and I believe it was included on his resume submitted to the University of Colorado. I have not seen the documents released by the Regents pertaining to his tenure review. It may be that the vita submitted by Churchill made absolutely no mention of his art work.

If the charge of copyright infringement were initiated at this time by faculty in art or art history, and reviewed by experts in that field, Churchill may well have a legitimate defense that these people are not genuinely his peers, and he is in fact being subjected to unfair persecution for his political views.

Given these facts and arguments, an allegation of copyright infringement would appear to be tangential. There is however another angle on it, which does relate to Churchill's activism and writings. His Native American detractors, including many within the American Indian Movement who may fairly be said to be personally biased against Ward Churchill, have pointed to his opposition to the Indian Arts and Crafts Act. Churchill's position is argued in such essays as "The Nullification of Native American? An Analysis of the 1990 American Indian Arts and Crafts Act." His detractors claim that his opposition was motivated by his own desire to misrepresent his identity for financial and social gain (see e.g. Questionable identity and questionable scholarship, by Patti Jo King; for an opposing view, see The termination and removal of Ward Churchill, by Scott Richard Lyons; for online reactions, see Churchill spit on an Indian Woman?!! and Haggling WC’s identity & The FAR-Right witch-hunt!). It does stray from the strictly legal issue of copyright infringement, but I think valid points are being raised on both sides.

Whether the issue of copyright infringement (or, as some have suggested, fraud) is relevant to the panel convened to hear the case, I could not say. As I understand it, they are charged with investigating allegations of fabrication and plagiarism (see Colorado Regents probe Churchill's record). From where I sit, it would be a mistake to either accept or dismiss out of hand these new allegations. But I concede that my interest in the matter is considerably more academic than the review panel's.

That's the point.

And, for what it's worth, I'd stay away from Kathy Acker's novels if you don't like the idea of "stealing" another person's words. She lifts liberally from people like Dickens--LONG passages--to displace narrative expectations and to "deconstruct" conceptions of authority. And she actually taught literature until her untimely death, so I think she knows of what she speaks.

I don't think -- too old (copyrights DO expire). So your argument and defense of him doesn't work. Sorry. See my post upthread explaining a little more WHY this is illegal, immoral and unethical, since it's a grave and obvious copyright infringement.

and why it is part of the field of art and humanities and has been since the late 60s.

Yes, Dickens is no longer covered by copyrights, but numerous artists appropriate the work of others to make "statements." IMO, Churchill's is not a statement (it's just laziness, but I've said that about his scholarly work, too), but that is beside the point. It is perfectly within the boundaries of artistic movements for a long time now.

"It is perfectly within the boundaries of artistic movements for a long time now."

I argue that this is not so. He did not copy a well known piece as some part of his. He did not significantly alter it to make it a "new" creation. He simply reproduced anothers protected work, and sold it as his own. More than a hundred times.

Regardless, within the bounds of artistic movements or not, it is clearly not within the bounds of law.

Perhaps you are right. Juridical claims don't concern me though; I'm looking at this from an aesthetic-philosophical background.

Certainly, "copying" (or not) a piece of fairly maudlin art and selling it is hardly grounds for dismissal, though. But the RW is fired up over Churchill now so every step is suspect in the witch hunt! Maybe they can get him on tax evasion problems! Did he pay taxes on that art he sold?

"An immoral law makes it a man's duty to break it, at every hazard. For virtue is the very self of every man. It is therefore a principle of law that an immoral contract is void, and that an immoral statute is void. For, as laws do not make right, and are simply declaratory of a right which already existed, it is not to be presumed that they can so stultify themselves as to command injustice."

Paraphrase: Just because it's the law, doesn't make it right.

Well, he was talkinga bout the Fugitive Slave Act, but...

Lots of evidence, that current copyright law is well beyond the intention of the Founding Fathers and is used as a captialist tool to suppress invention creativity and free speech. Imagine someone like Churchill getting involved with that.

The art in question is an obvious, blatant copy of someone else’s work, reproduced and sold over a hundred times as Churchill’s own.
This is not “beyond the original intent” of the copyright law. It’s an almost perfect example of what the copyright law is for.

prove he didn't or else your just hocking second hand right wing indignation.

I'm assuming he did and you are really just a willing mouth piece for
a Crucible like political witch hunt.

You should be proud.

RE: "He said he had consent from the original artist... prove he didn't or else your just hocking second hand right wing indignation."
a) The copyright owner (who is also the original artist’s son) says Churchill did NOT have permission. I believe this information was included in the original article that started the thread.
b) As anyone familiar with copyright law would know, permission to use a copyrighted work must be in writing and clearly define the circumstances under which it can be used. Else, the grantor runs the risk of weakening or destroying copyright protection, and the grantee runs the risk of not being able to prove such permission was granted. Churchill has not produced any written permission to use the work.
c) The copyrighted publication containing the work included a notice that written permission must be obtained before reproducing the material.
d) Churchill also says he told prospective purchasers that the work was “derivative” and not original. Oddly, the purchasers say they were told it was original, and express surprise and disappointment that it is not.

RE: “I'm assuming he did and you are really just a willing mouth piece for a Crucible like political witch hunt. You should be proud.”
You demand that I check my facts, yet make such an accusation based on what you admit is assumption? Perhaps you should take your own advice and check your facts before making such accusations. (It's easy to get enthusiastic in such a discussion: no hard feelings.)

"current copyright law is well beyond the intention of the Founding Fathers"

I did not say the intent of the current law, as your earlier post implied.

RE:
------
>>"current copyright law is well beyond the intention of the Founding Fathers"
>“I did not say the intent of the current law, as your earlier post implied.”
------
Sorry I misunderstood your point.

I don't believe the founding fathers specifically addressed copyright law at all. They left making such specific laws for the Congress they created in the Constitution, which is for the best. Laws should be much easier to change than the basic framework.

That the founding fathers did not address copyright law does not mean that they did not anticipate such law being made, or that it should be discarded. The Constitution creates a framework under which laws are made. Without such laws the Constitution (by itself) is insufficient to run a country. Congress has been granted the power to make laws that are not explicitly discussed in the Constitution, so long as it’s in one of the areas in which authority is granted to them. I suggest that making copyright law is fairly obviously granted to Congress under the power to regulate commerce.

Do you mean that copyright law goes too far in protecting against such copying? I argue that if it did not protect against such acts as this, then it would provide no protection at all for commercial works. In this case:

a) The copyright was recent;

b) Copies of the copyrighted work were still being actively sold by the copyright holder;

c) The changes made by Churchill were quite trivial (basically flip right to left and change the ink color);

d) The copies sold by Churchill were mechanically reproduced (not individual hand drawings);

e) Copies were sold repeatedly, for substantial sums, with profit as the apparent motive, and;

f) The buyers were under the impression that the copies were of an original composition by the seller.

It’s hard to imagine how it could get more blatant than this.

He reproduced and sold over a hundred prints of virtually an exact copy of another’s work, claiming they were his original composition. Look at the two works side by side and they appear to be one item next to a mirror. (By the way, I think it is an ink drawing, not a painting. But this is not important.)

This is not the same as painting a copy of a classic (out of copyright) work and selling your painting as a reproduction, which is done all the time.

It is not the same as inserting large chunks of non-copyrighted classical literature as some sort of device in your own work. This sounds somewhat goofy to me, but would not be illegal.

It IS illegal to take a recent, copyrighted work of art, mirror image it, claim it is your original composition, and sell copies. It is both copyright infringement and most likely fraud.

It matters not that the transgression is not in his area of teaching. If he were guilty of stock fraud, shoplifting, or embezzlement, he would be just as liable to be fired. Something about a morals clause, I think.

I've never thought much of Churchill, and have been puzzled that so many DUers defend him. He's hardly a spokesman for the mainstream left, he misrepresents himself, and he just comes off as a jerk.

I've never been one who called for his firing - he's entitled to say what he wants - but I don't want him as my poster child any more than I want Zell Miller.

Even those we disagree with have the right to their point of view, and the right to say it.

for saying it. Free speech does not and should not pertain to employment. An employer should be able to expect a certain standard of behavior out of their employees.

first off, if you want to live in a world where your other citizens who happen to control your employment get to tell you what you can say, you dont believe in free speech. Arguing that employers should be able to abuse thier economic power to control other citizens' speech is insane.

Secondly, the university is a government institution and is constitutionally prohibited from firing someone for thier speech, even if it was ok in a private setting.

For instance, if I work at a bank, I can't pass out pro-Nazi literature to every customer that comes up to me and call that free expression. Free speech does not apply to private employment, end of story. Sure, they can't fire you for belonging to a political party, but they can fire you for behaving in a way that is not beneficial to the place of employment. I'm not sure about government employment, but private employers certainly can and should be able to fire you for saying certain things.

Also, I ask you, do you defend Larry Summers' right to say what he said?

Only free from legitimate authority.

You do realize that letting unelected people with economic power control our speech would be no different than letting an illigitamate government do it. Why on earth would it be ok for a private citizen to silence me but it isnt ok for a legitimate government to do so?

And you made a completely dishonest comparison. If the speech conflicts with the job you are paid to do, it is one thing. If you work at a bank and then on the weekend go and say you think the US brought 9/11 on itself, no, you shouldnt be fired, not unless you want to live in a facist state.

That cannot be proven to be a violation of the state's employment discrimination laws. IOW, unless you can prove you were a victim of legally proscribed discrimination, you are out of luck.

The Bill of Rights didn't even apply to the states until SCOTUS incorporated parts of it. It most certainly does *not* apply to private entities. You can *easily* be fired for acts of "freedom of speech" or "freedom of expression" that do not conform to company policy. A lot of places will fire you on the spot for going to recreational websites or playing computer games or reading your E-mail, even if you are still doing your job. Likewise, you can be readily terminated if a company learns you post on blogs that disparage them, if they learn you talk bad about the company, or if you bring a competitor's product into the work place. Many places will fire your butt for dating co-workers, regardless of the circumstancs.

You're not having your rights to speech and expression silenced, you are simply no longer being employed. You can walk up and down the street just off Best Buy's property with a huge "BEST BUY SUCKS!" message and they'll just have to take it, but you better not say that on the job or otherwise if you work for them.

The university as employer realizes the long tradition of the recognition of the necessity for the free-flow and formation of ideas - pretty much a most important if not the most important reason they exist. They don't have to uphold it, but if they don't:

#1 They suck as a university.
#2 He may be able to sue them on Constitutional grounds.
#3 They suck bigtime as a university.

Clearly you are puzzled... though im not sure why.

Its quite simple. The man is obviously a bit wacked, but his points about 9/11 were micharecterized around the country to create a public outcry and justify a witchunt.

We defend him because it is the right thing to do and because this isnt happening in a vaccuum. The right wing didnt do this because they care about Ward Churchill, they did this to send a message to every liberal professor in the country. And just because churchill has done some seemingly stupid things doesnt mean they wont use this to hurt professors who havent if we let them.

And most of what he said about 9/11 was spot on, by the way. I dont like the eichman comparison, but his overall point wasnt offensive.

What is puzzling you? Everything is pretty straightforward.

LOL!

And it's not about "sending a message" to liberal professors.

It's about first mischaracterizing his (cherry-picked) opinions as being representative of most liberals' (which they are not), and using that as a way to promote their "Academic Bill of Rights" - IE a way of trying to pack academia with right-wingers, since hiring the best and brightest tends to result in more liberal professors. They don't want to "hurt" liberal professors, they want to squelch them and push them out in favor of right-wingers.

So how does our standing up for some of the more wacked-out comments of an academic help stop them from doing that? It doesn't. It helps them. It gives them more fuel for their legions of crazed dittoheads to do call-in campaigns to legislatures and University boards of regents to try to implement their crazy agenda.

Don't make one damn mistake people. If your fifteen minutes ever arrive they will use it to discredit you and the movement you came in on. And when it comes don't freaking hit the scumbag whatever you do.

It must have taken a whole lot of digging to make such an obscure connection. Stupid of him to do that. But I can think of probably one million things that are far worse and more important to report.

WAVE3 in Lousiville went after Micheal Moore-that guy got beat up on camara too.

I'm waiting for the "who's next?" segment Or "Who's looking out for you, live at five." segment to begin

BREAKING NEWS developing in liberal land-dick swarthy reporting

"We are on the scene with Dan Rather,

Dan, Dan, can you tell us about why you hate america so much?

Dan, answer please. <whispers, he's ignoring us, kick him in the shin>

Dan is it true that you have denounced your American citizenship because Karl Rove said he never sent those documents to you."

"no, that's absurd" says Dan

"Well that's a lie, you're a liar"

Dan don't hit us what have we done to you. That's assault and we've got it on camara."

"Well there you have it folks another liberal wack job attacks the good folks that bring you fair and balanced news. <in booming voice> Who look's out for you, you, you, you!" <fade out with wicked witches cackle>

Anchor: "There you have it folks another angry liberal."

Anchor want-to-be: "I guess that's all that needs to be said Bob."

Speaking of that I bet the segment will be called "When liberals attack".

Frankly speaking I don't like the man, but I really am getting sick of the new conception of "if it bleeds it leads" as if I'm not even more sick over the major paradigm currently operating. The tool that fed white America's fears of the "angry black man" is now being used to construct the image of the "angry liberal". Images of Ward Churchill next to a "street" crime both presented as random acts of violence. The new fear dancing in the heads of the mindless sheep. Don't take the bait. Churchill just proved what kind of ass he really is by doing so.

Churchill had some dirty laundry in the closet and now its been drug out for all to see. Churchill's response to this didn't do him a bit of good either.

It still doesn't change what happened to Dan Rather, Micheal Moore, and a litanny of others.

I don't know what the hell he is, but he doesn't represent a rational left-of-center viewpoint.

You can dismiss people from being leftists now? Where did you get that power?

Just like Lyndon Larouche is a "democrat", but I don't consider him a kindred spirit in any way.

Characterizing WTC employees (any number of whom may have been good liberals, many of whom were not Americans, ALL of whom had to make a living) as Nazis is just beyond the pale, no matter how you try to couch it.

I'm not shy of criticizing the US when it is guilty of state terrorism. But I don't call my mother, who works for a defense contractor, a killer. I would prefer she didn't work for such an enterprise, but I disagree that she or anybody like is a villain who deserves to be taken out there. Even if he didn't say that, it's what he implied. He also pretended to be an Indian, when he is not, now he is exposed as an art fraud. I've seen the guy in interviews, and he sounds like a total flake who is completely full of himself. If you want him in your camp, you can have him. I don't need him.

Nobody is saying you have to have anything to do with Ward Churchill.

And, im sure its already been explained to you, so this is probably in vain, but Ward Churchill didnt say what you think he said about the towers. You missed his point dramatically. His point was that not everyone in the towers had clean hands. He never said they deserved to be bombed, that was a conclusion you had to jump to. He was simply saying that some people in those towers profited off the suffering of others around the world and ignored the human cost.

He never said they deserved to die and its pretty clear from his statements afterwords that he doesnt think they did. His position as I read it is that his preference would have been nobody dying unjustly ANYWHERE.

You must read what he wrote as a response to those people who took 9/11 as the completely unprovoked murder of all innocents that gives the US a blank check for revenge, when in fact, no matter how you cut it, 9/11 was motivated by revenge itself, revenge for US actions just as ethically bad as 9/11. He isnt defending the actions, just suggesting the attackers may have had reasons other than hating freedom and that the US doesnt have the right to play the victim when we dish out death ourselves.

chance that the direction his unbalanced behavior derives from is the Left.

I think anyone who makes the news could be subject to this sort of garbage "news you can use" shit. If a credible figure of the left is in public view they get wacked just as easily. That's why I picked Dan Rather a completely moderate to moderate-conservative non commital type guy.

I'm a leftist and don't identify with Ward Churchill but shit If I don't think that people I know could be subject to similar pointless digging. The guy's a hack artist, who cares? It shouldn't be news and it shouldn't reflect on his faculty status because its irrelevant.

Certainly some of his comments arent... but none of us agree on everything with each other.

He is quite obviously on the left.

Why are we giving in to the right and becoming defensive about this. He doesnt speak for us, and they are liars if they say he does.

I thank Udokier use of the word irrational might refer to his belligerence and arrogance.

I just think we are letting the right frame this whole ordeal.

Ward Churchill is a radical leftist professor who likes to make waves. What he said is a non-story.

The story is why something he wrote years ago made the national news and why his job is in danger.

The story is that this is a coordinated move by the right to hurt the left, and the left is largely going along with it for fear of seeming to agree with him.

I have no such fear. I dont fully agree with him. I think he had every right to say it, and I think our society is richer for having his opinion, and I think that about everyone.

that same thing. It was a poor attempt at satire.

on edit: But I also meant to highlight how these things -"poorly worded points and innocent artistic indiscretions" -become cannonfodder for the assholes who troll around looking for blanks to fire into their unsuspecting. We are probably going to wind up on that assclown's blog who does the dummie funnies just for mentioning his name.

I only say innocent indiscretion because I suspect he is a novice artist (or was 24 years ago) and would have been attempting to produce copies just like that one. At least that's how my wife has learned to paint. Now explaining why he copied it 500 times and sold one is another story.

this be a reason to fire him, dispite his tenure?

academic work. They will fire him only because of political pressure and he will sue and they will probably settle out of court and claim it was worth it.

"have a hard time in civil court."? If the print is a copy of another's work, and he sold it as his original work, it is certainly illegal in several ways. For instance, it's copyright infringement against the true owner, and it is grounds for a suit from anyone who bought one of the “original” prints.

But much more importantly, I suspect selling over a hundred “fake” original prints for $100 each is criminal fraud. It is almost certainly a federal crime if even one of those fake prints was delivered via mail.
(I am not a lawyer. Your milage may vary.)

Perhaps none of those involved will choose to sue/press charges. But I'll bet that with say, 150 prints out there, at least one is in the hands of someone who will push for the maximum prosecution possible against the “Evil Ward Churchill”.
I’d still be willing to bet against any jail time or even very significant monetary damages. But it will be a mess.

And yes, a professor at a public institution proven to have sold plagiarized works for profit can expect to lose their job, even if it is unrelated to their teaching area.

this has zilch to do with his work as a faculty member

Morals clause.
150 prints @ 100 each = $15,000. Significant, if fraud.
If some were sold or deliverd by mail, it's federal mail fraud.

This can get you fired as a public servant, no matter what you teach.

And they have a lot of resources.

I don't approve of plagiarism, either. But I wonder what it took them to find it. I suppose any kind of complaint anyone had that would have gone unnoticed is now magnified and exploded.

And people should realize - they will do this to anyone that they think threatens their agenda.

to the local stations for test marketing stories.

This man has upset a lot of people with his "Eichman" comments, he claims to be a native Indian which he is not, and now he is selling artwork that he did not do. If a rwinger were doing this, we would want his head on a stick.

Are you alleging that he didn't paint it now? That's a very serious charge indeed! I hope you can prove that's true. I had understood the argument to be that his picture closely resembled another, copyrighted painting for years ago. But you're saying he "did not do" it at all?

you know what I mean, and as far as closely resembling another picture goes, IT IS AN EXACT MIRROR IMAGE. Let me say that again, IT IS AN EXACT MIRROR IMAGE. He should be help responsible for stealing somebody's creation, because last time I heard, this was against the law.

in the thing it is the EXACT MIRROR IMAGE of. They would naturally be there if it were indeed AN EXACT MIRROR IMAGE, wouldn't they?

So it might be wrong to say it's AN EXACT MIRROR IMAGE. It might be more correct to say he borrowed forms, themes, and patterns from a previous painting, reversed them, and added some individual, if hardly novel, touches to those forms, themes, and patterns.

there is even the same amount of indians on each picture and the same bushes, but yeah, you believe what you want to believe.

http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/nimmo02092005/


-----------

------------



---

Scaife "the archconservative godfather in (a) heavily funded war against (Clinton),"

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/scaife/scaife.php

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/players/scaife.htm

http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/clinton/Clintonculwar8-05.html

I support anyone's right to say whatever they want - no matter how inflammatory - but plagiarizing art is another thing entirely.

rubing their hands together and drooling because they know that they have succeeded with their mission regarding universities. There will be no professors speaking out against the Bush Junta's Empirialsm from now on.

the colors are different and the scenery is simplified.

I don't know where the line is drawn if it is an painting
or free hand drawing it would be original.

If it was a mechanical transfer it would probably cross
the line.

This was made in 1981 and it is amazing that people are
so hell bend to destroy this guy.

--as Jameson called it, "the cultural logic of late capitalism." It's not just happenstance that pomo artists "stole" images from others and reapproprited them. It was very much in vogue for years, from Warhol to Kruger and a host of feminist artists. It even its own philosophy in the works of Baudrillard, Lyotard, etc.

But then I wouldn't expect RWers to appreciate art and its movements.

they are Hell bent upon destroying anyone that speaks Truth to Power!

but in a mirror image. The original artists could very easily sue over this and probably should.

I don't believe it's "the exact same picture" precisely because it IS a mirror image and because it has been "colorized." But it doesn't matter. I certainly doubt Churchill is fluent in postmodern theory, anyhow, but the point remains that he painted something that resembles something else. It's no biggie. It's just another mode to attack him by people who want to see him taken down.

By now, this looks like the efforts to get Capone. They want to nail him on something so they'll try anything.

if he were a rwinger, you would want his head on a stick and yes it is an exact mirror of the other painting. Here is a url so that you can see for yourself.

http://news4colorado.com/topstories/local_story_055200531.html


I just love it when people bend their own rules because it fits into their agenda. I just love it.

Original or not.

that it might be an original. Originally from a book! I wonder if it was a paint by numbers or maybe some type of finger painting. Justify it any way you want, he is/was still wrong.

and was certainly not illegal in 1981.

After years of our laws being distorted by intellectual
property rights hacks like Disney and the recording industry
it may be illegal in 2005.

Remember sampling was consider legal in the early eighties
and this is just the visual foil.

Claiming I stole the beats that I rail is a old story.

So if I take an old B&W film and add color to it, then it's my film. Cool. I didn't know it was that easy, and just think, I thought that was stealing.

You must have missed the conversations that have been going on for years about "origins," "ownership" of representations, and authority. There are lots of postmodern philosophy boards where you can discuss this, but I'm sure the answers wouldn't please you.

I don't bend my rules about aesthetic inquiry over anything, nor do I have an "agenda." Quite the contrary.

the artist gives credit to the original artist. Churchil did not give credit. Here is a small snippet from the story at url

http://news4colorado.com/topstories/local_story_055200531.html

A closer examination of the Churchill piece revealed there is no credit given to the original artist. Churchill also refused to provide CBS4 with documentation that would prove his claims.

See, I even gave the ORIGINAL writer credit for the article. See how it works? Face it, he stole the picture and took the acclaim (and cash) as his own.

and I'm not concerned about "stealing" and "acclaim." Juridical claims about "documentations"--how silly--are meaningless to me.

The philosophical basis of my argument takes up entire sections of libraries. There is NO concern whatsoever in postmodern art, literature, or philosophy for the "originality" because the "original" artist, writer, or thinker represented something that was, in itself, always-already derivative. It's about the endless production of simulacra and the endless deferral of authority. Yadda yadda yadda.

As I have said, none of my answers will satisfy you.

my wife (who is an artist) and I took one look at the paintings and could plainly see that Churchil's is a mirror image of the original. I don't have a problem with an artist putting there own "spin" on another painting, but this is pathetic, especialy when he did not give credit to the original artist. You are right, none of your answers will satisfy me because I am looking at this from one point of view, right and wrong. Yes, Churchil could, and will probably get away with the theft, but I would be very upset if I were the original artist. You can hide behind your "It's about the endless production of simulacra and the endless deferral of authority" but in the end, it is still wrong.

from a bourgeois proprietary perspective, but I'm talking about aesthetics and you're talking about ownership; you're welcome to hide behind binary notions of truth/untruth, right/wrong, and original/copy if you like, but they are useless terms to me, especially since those with sincere interests in aesthetic inquiry have largely relegated them to another era of thinking.

not to agree. We could debate this forever, happy trails.

I suppose an erudite defense of Duchamp/Warhol/Negativland would be nice here, but I'll just stick out my tongue and say neener neener instead.

it has different coloring and detail levels.

once again, justify it any way you want, it is still stealing.

I know one "rwinger" I'd like to hang...

LOL ... LOL ... LOL ...

So now I am a right winger because I think that stealing is wrong? I don't understand your reasoning but you keep it up, we'll leave a light on for ya.

unless you copy it 100% with no alterations, it's considered valid, according to copyright law

this piece shouls be titeld: Rightwing media creates controversy over old artwork

guess michael jackson wasn't filling up the broadcast when they went with this

unless you copy it 100% with no alterations, it's considered valid, according to copyright law

this piece shouls be titeld: Rightwing media creates controversy over old artwork

guess michael jackson wasn't filling up the broadcast when they went with this

Original



Ward Churchill copy

if so, that's enough to get him off the hook legally. creatively, you may have a problem, but it does work. there's an artist out there who takes photos of photos and passes them off as his-and he ends up in galaries.

but this is beside the point:
Is this really the biggest thing for the media to be covering? If you read the piece, it's disgusting the zeal these "journalists" show in harrassing churchill outside his office. if only this energy were spent going after targets that actually affect peoples lives, like govt corruption. these guys think they're muckrakers because they're joining bill o'reilly in piling on a guy for a 3-year old essay (which has been distorted beyond belief)

Also very military here. It is for sure that they could be covering actual news. But then that is a problem all over the country.

of my paintings and changed the colors on it and calling it their own. I think I had heard that the original artist is dead, but the family claims to have copyrights to it.

you act out agaisnt bush, and they hound every aspect of your life.

i'm not condoning the art thing, though as an art student, i know he could legally get away with it-whether it's ethical or not, is up to you to decide

but this is such a minor thing-someone possibly faking a print on ebay. the way this journalist is chasing after him, you'd think he just found a guy who'd lifted the mona lisa from the louvre

Churchill should have handled the situation better too, but I understand the strain he must be under. It is a witch hunt for sure. They wont let go either. Even the Gov here is calling for his job. If mob ruled this man would have been run out of town by now.

If you look at his other work you can see the context of his artwork. He always gets his shapes from something external he finds. His art is in the colorization.

http://search-desc.ebay.com/ward-churchill_W0QQsofocusZbsQQsbrftogZ1QQfromZR10QQsatitleZQ22wardQ20churchillQ22QQsacatZ-1QQftsZ2QQftrtZ1QQftrvZ1QQsadisZ200QQfsopZ1QQfsooZ1

Churchill didn't do anything wrong back then. Now if he had sold this as an original Thomas Mails, then that's another issue.

Ward was/is actually a decent artist.

Mails himself used other peoples art and photographs to make his original "copyrighted" :eyes: artwork.

I would like to see it before you defend a plagarist.

I would need access to the Mails library if his family hasn't sold all of it on eBay yet. Mails was an ethnologist first, an artist second. As was/is Churchill.



The serigraph that Churchill produced did not violate any "copyright" laws that I'm aware of. As a collector I have a cursory understanding of them. Certainly not an expert.... just enough to keep myself out of trouble.

The buyer who paid the staggering sum of $100 might have some recourse, but it doesn't appear that he is too concerned about it. Churchill is partially correct in his statement. The buyer does have some responsibility here... and there is a specific statue of limitation in these matters.

The family doesn't have a case. The lawyer who was used by this Gannonist to report this story was incredibly irresponsible in making the statement he did. The first question that popped in my head when reading this story is..."where is the original pen and ink?" Where is it and who "owns" it? If it was sold did Mails assign ownership rights over to the buyer? These are questions that a top notch lawyer :eyes: should have been asking immediately.

There is also the issue of whether the book or the "art" suffered because Churchill produced a serigraph based on a book illustration. You could argue that the "property" here is the book itself, and not the art. You could go on and on with this shit...

If a real laywer would like to pipe in and tell me I'm full of crap... I'm all ears. ;-)

worked in making Churchill out to be a simple plagerist, I wonder how quick these reporters would be in recanting the story and offering the professor an apology?

I dont know anything about these types of laws. Maybe that should be a subject I should look into as an artist myself.

Maybe that should be a subject I should look into as an artist myself

I own an original pen and ink done by a lesser artist that was copied in oil/canvas by a very famous artist. I have ownership rights on the pen and ink. Can I go after the estate of the famous artist? No. The burden of "proof" is on me and the original artist. Prove that the work of the lesser artist has suffered...blah blah blah. Artist B made "x" amount of money off the work of Artist A..blah blah blah I would have to prove a specific intent.

Even if I could go after the family estate...I wouldn't :)

Don't expect any Gannonist in Denver to apologize to Churchill. The feeding frenzy going on here against Churchill is amazing to watch. I heard some puke on the radio this week give a "statistic" that 50% of Democrats agree with Churchill.

I was a fence sitter on this whole Churchill issue until this bogus "copyright" story came out. I now stand with Churchill. I can't believe what they are doing to this guy....

to comment on the concepts of originality and the use/misuse of copyright law (in ways the founding fathers never intended) to supress speech and creativity.

Artists have been doing it for years.

And if Churchill was doing it in 1981, he was on the cutting edge!

That reporter is an idiot. I can't believe DUers are falling for the RW media tricks.

I guess I was taken into the "dirty trick" because the print does appear to be a mirror image. I did look up definition of 'appropriation,' And felt angry that they would stoop to this level of Character assassination, just because they disagree with his political views.

Duped in Denver, no where is safe from the CrapoMedia!

Nice catch
:thumbsup:

I'll be the guy in the corner turning blue holding my breath, waiting for some Gannonist in Denver to report the fucking truth on this story.

in a long time.

What predatory people in power will do to hurt someone else for speaking their truth is pathetic, divisive and toxic. I can certainly see there are some here doing the same thing.

What Ward Churchill said was that according to the United States' military's own rules of military engagement, if the World Trade Center were in an enemy nation that the United States was attacking it would be a legitimate target. This is recent. Last week. Not that he personally felt the death of the people at the World Trade Center, which housed offices of the CIA, FBI, etc. was warranted, but that he does not feel that the death of similar people, with similar relationships to targets selected in Iraq by the United States military is warranted either. Therefore, it is his contention that the United States military cannot have it both ways and that an Iraqi human life is equal to an American human life in his opinion.

:eyes: sarcasm

What he says on this program makes sense. I just wish he had made such elaborations early on, like when he first wrote the controversial piece.