The Artist's Statement

The Box contains what I believe Lawrence Lessig’s book is trying to point out dealing with copyrights and intellectual property in our future. The shape is not necessarily significant, with the exception of the execution of the project. The color indicates the purity of the original reason behind copyrights and intellectual property. The words placed on the box are from Lawrence Lessig’s book, Free Culture. Their random selection, placement and arrangement represent the lack of regard for Lessig’s words from corporate America. I believe they truly can not see, or do not wish to see, what they will ultimately do with their repeated extensions of copyrights. They can only see these extensions as a means of control and power, which translates into more money (for them). The cutting up of the random pages from Lessig’s book shows the words are there, the logic is there, but we see only bits and pieces of the reasoning behind what Lessig is trying to point out. In short, humanity is not able or choose not to be able to see the "Big Picture".

Once the viewer looks into the box, the reality of what is bound to happen comes in to view. The Copyright repeats and repeats and repeats itself until public domain is no longer an option from which to create. This once again shows how something that was good and well intention at its creation is now being abused and is not working for the good of “ALL,” but only for the good of a “FEW”.

Now we look at the doctrine of "Fair Use" within copyright law. To determine if; my project for this class would be in violation of "Fair Use" laws, had Lawrence Lessig NOT waived part of his copyrights and allowed a remixing of his book? To grasp an understanding of that part of copyright law which defines "Fair Use," I have cited this statement from the website indicated below:

...Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.

When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of “fair use” would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered “fair” nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney... (http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html)

Had Lessig NOT given others permission to remix his book, then I would say yes, I am in violation of "Fair Use" laws. However, is Lessig being as clever as a fox? By waiving parts of his copyright is he facilitating the spread of his point of view to the public of the possibility of an oncoming catastrophy in the future? Only time will tell.