Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Masterpiece]

e. All of the above?

[Is it cold in here?]

Momo also listed "eel handling" on her resume.

Marigold is at 14 Elm Grove Lane and Marten is at 144 Dwight Street.

[mustang6172]

I didn't write the full word because I have neither the luxury of living within the 19th century's definition of morality, nor do I have Quentin Tarantino's disregard for racial sensitivity.  It's also possible that would violate the civility clause of the forum rules.

I find myself confused about the topic of this thread. Is it about

* whether Jeph really changed the strip (he did)
* what triggered the change (we will probably never know)
* whether he had the moral obligation to change it or
* whether he had the moral obligation to leave it like it was?

 

I'm arguing that both artists and the public have a moral obligation to leave art as it is.

[henri bemis]

Jeph became uncomfortable with that particular joke being in there, he had the power to change it, and so he did. Works for me.

This.  I'm not sure where 'moral obligations' came into anything.  We don't know why he changed it, but I assume there isn't one, singular reason, and really, it doesn't matter to me.  And I know I'm not the only one glad that he did - not because I'd stop reading QC if he hadn't, but because it demonstrates that he gives a shit, to put it not-so-eloquently.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't get why it's such a problem for some that an author edits his work (without trying to hide anything - it's not like Jeph is trying to pretend the original dialogue didn't exist.  As I see it, he's owning an early fuck-up.  Everyone fucks up, but owning it is rare, so, if anything, his editing the comic just increased my respect).

[Storel]

Yeah, I don't buy "moral obligations" on the artist's side. Historically, artists have frequently edited their own works. Some even erased them so they could reuse the canvas for something else, and some didn't even bother erasing the old painting before painting a new one on top of it.

As I see it, an artist's work (painting, sculpture, etc.) belongs to them unless and until they sell it to someone else. Before that happens, they can do anything they want to it, even down to editing it years after originally creating it. It's their creative work, and they get to change it if they come up with something that improves it according to their artistic vision.

Once it's been sold to someone else, it belong to the buyer and the artist has no further right to change it. Whether the buyer has any right to edit it is another story. I would tend to say no, unless they get permission from the artist to do so, because the changed work would still have the original artist's signature on it, but would no longer be entirely their work, so it would be misrepresenting that artist's work.

However, how strongly people would feel about changing an artist's work tends to depend somewhat on how valuable the work is perceived to be. Someone painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa would send shockwaves of outrage around the world, but someone completely altering a hack painting they got from a Motel 6 would probably not upset anyone but the original artist...

[DSL]

I'm thinking of an artist who created a public piece of work, who then decided it wasn't quite what he wanted it to be, and so took it upon himself to "edit" it.

Charges of vandalism were considered.

No, it wasn't George Lucas.

[Method of Madness]

It isn't the word that's the problem, it's the attitude.

That's one of the reason the change bugs me. The attitude does not change. She's still grabbing Marten and doing her thing without asking if it's ok first, because she'd assume he'd be happy with the result.

[Valdís]

That's one of the reason the change bugs me. The attitude does not change.

Yes, it does. It's still wrong and objectionable, but differently so. It leaves it open for ambiguity and, given that it's Jeph, I am ready to read an ambiguity in this matter in a favourable light. Especially given a deliberate rewriting moving away from the horrible reading of it.

"What do you think would happen if I just grabbed him and humped him" means Marten can go "Leave me alone", where-as in the previous text that isn't possibly part of the question due to the word used. It does change the meaning. It's not acceptable to do either, but it's a change.

[Method of Madness]

Interesting. Didn't think of it that way.

[Storel]

I'm thinking of an artist who created a public piece of work, who then decided it wasn't quite what he wanted it to be, and so took it upon himself to "edit" it.

Charges of vandalism were considered.

No, it wasn't George Lucas.

Hmm, did the artist just install the piece in a public place and say "Here you go," or did a city or other public organization actually commission the work and pay for it? If he received payment for it, than it wasn't his anymore to edit; if he didn't, then it was.

[Method of Madness]

The latter is arguable. He could've said he was paid to give them a complete painting, and that the painting wasn't complete yet, so he finished it.

[Valdís]

@Storel: Well, actually.. that doesn't matter, does it? Money being exchanged just usually signifies relinquishing his rights to it. The difference between "I am giving/selling you this DVD" and "I am letting you watch my DVD". In the latter case the person being lent the DVD doesn't really have a leg to stand on if you snap your own disc.

[Is it cold in here?]

According to some European copyright laws an artist has moral rights in a work that remain in place even after it's sold.

[mtmerrick]

Earth's IP laws make my head hurt. >_<

[Valdís]

According to some European copyright laws an artist has moral rights in a work that remain in place even after it's sold.

Yeah, but then it's a case of selling the rights to a work, but not the right of alteration. Basically a limited sale, but since the artist has ceased owning the work that wouldn't grant them the right to alter it. Their remaining not-sold right being "Well, you can't either!", pretty much?

[mustang6172]

Once it's been sold to someone else, it belong to the buyer and the artist has no further right to change it. Whether the buyer has any right to edit it is another story. I would tend to say no, unless they get permission from the artist to do so, because the changed work would still have the original artist's signature on it, but would no longer be entirely their work, so it would be misrepresenting that artist's work.

Haven't all the QC archives been bought and paid for?  Between traffic for advertisers and merchandise, we've allowed Jeph to make a career for himself running one of the few self-sustaining web comics on the internet.  Jeph owns the copyrights, but we've been consuming his products for 10 years.  Don't we own the archives as much as he does?

[jwhouk]

Buy Volume 1 and the original is yours to keep.

[Method of Madness]

Or, you know, go here.

[Storel]

@Storel: Well, actually.. that doesn't matter, does it? Money being exchanged just usually signifies relinquishing his rights to it. The difference between "I am giving/selling you this DVD" and "I am letting you watch my DVD". In the latter case the person being lent the DVD doesn't really have a leg to stand on if you snap your own disc.

Well, if  you give somebody money so you can watch their DVD and you have to return it when you're done, then the DVD has been rented, not sold. Selling entails a permanent transfer of possession, while renting entails a temporary one. You usually have considerably fewer rights with something you're renting than with something you own, as specified by the local laws (city, state, or nation) and/or any rental contract you may have signed.

According to some European copyright laws an artist has moral rights in a work that remain in place even after it's sold.

Yeah, but then it's a case of selling the rights to a work, but not the right of alteration. Basically a limited sale, but since the artist has ceased owning the work that wouldn't grant them the right to alter it. Their remaining not-sold right being "Well, you can't either!", pretty much?

That's an interesting point. With works of art, unlike most other things you can buy, it's generally understood that owning one gives you the right to do pretty much anything with it except alter it (apart from restoration work on an old or damaged work, of course, and that's not so much altering as repairing; you're trying to return it to its original appearance, rather than changing that appearance to something else). As you put it, all the rights to that work except the right of alteration were sold with it. It's also generally understood, though, that the artist doesn't keep the right of alteration for themselves; they don't have the right to come into your house or museum and alter the work. So the right of alteration basically ceases to exist when the art is sold to someone.

Unless... the local laws give the artist specific rights after sale, as IICIH mentioned. OR unless... the sale contract (oral or written) specifies that the new owner, or the artist, gains or keeps the right to alter the piece of art -- there's always an "unless" when it comes to contracts -- and the local laws don't forbid that practice. But I believe that's pretty rare.

[Method of Madness]

Wait, that's absurd. Like, if I were to somehow buy The Last Supper, who could actually stop me from adding an extra 16 disciples and a mariachi band? If I owned the painting, I can't imagine anyone stopping me from doing that.

[Sidhekin]

Legally?  Nope; the copyright is long expired.

I'd watch out for fan(atic)s, though.

ETA: They actually did paint over The Last Supper, the latest such incident from 1978 to 1999.  Not all were too happy about that: James Beck was "scathing", and Michael Daley described a sleeve as "a serious misrepresentation of Leonardo's final design".  What might they make of a mariachi band?

[Method of Madness]

How would the copyright stop me from altering a copy I own? It could stop me from displaying the new version, sure, but it can't stop me from actually altering it for my personal use. That's like saying I can't buy a book and cross out the main character's name and write my own. (I have never done this, but reserve the right to do so.)

[Sidhekin]

I probably shouldn't call it "copyright".  It's just that "opphavsrett", the rights of the originator, is a bundled lot of rights, and usually translated as "copyright".  Having said that, I think an argument can be made from "copyright" alone:

You can amend the work, but you can never show anyone. Not until copyright has expired.

So, what happens if the work is misplaced or stolen?  How will the artist's copyright be protected?

And then, what happens if you go bankrupt?  If it is a printing of a book, that's no problem: Burn it.  (Ouch.)  No damage to copyright, and no great loss to your creditors.  (It'll probably be worthless, anyway.)

If it is an original painting or sculpture, though?  You're in a fix: If you give it up to your creditors, you have violated copyright; if you do not, you have wronged your creditors.

So, don't do it.

[PHDrillSergeant]

There certainly are a lot of people offended by a years-old hand-drawn webcomic on the internet. Claiming stuff is "horrendously offensive" and such. While I understand that rape is a serious subject, I also think that just because someone makes a joke about it doesn't mean everyone should suddenly go into "censor it" mode. I wholeheartedly oppose censorship of any kind, and I've said before that I lose respect for people who censor their work because someone else is offended. If you don't like it, don't read it.

You can amend the work, but you can never show anyone. Not until copyright has expired.

That's not how copyright works. At all.

You could show people all you wanted to. You could plaster your face with the image and distribute it and all sorts of stuff. It would be a copyright violation, but you could do it.

It only becomes illegal after the copyright owner tells you you cannot do whatever it is you're doing anymore. But you have to actually do it first. But in the case of an altered webcomic, or a book with names changed, the copyright owner isn't going to say anything because he'd be pretty much unable to prove damages.

A lot of people make this mistake, and it leads to scathing criticisms of copyright; the illegality of what you're doing is something which is a right held by the copyright owner. If the copyright owner doesn't stop you, you're good as gold.

[Method of Madness]

Is art not covered under the first sale doctrine?

[Valdís]

There certainly are a lot of people offended by a years-old hand-drawn webcomic on the internet. Claiming stuff is "horrendously offensive" and such. While I understand that rape is a serious subject, I also think that just because someone makes a joke about it doesn't mean everyone should suddenly go into "censor it" mode. I wholeheartedly oppose censorship of any kind, and I've said before that I lose respect for people who censor their work because someone else is offended. If you don't like it, don't read it.

That would be Jeph you're referring to, not a third party. Every single time this has been brought up it's been by one of the people getting pissy about him not liking what he wrote a decade ago, unrepresentative of him and the comic.

This was noticed and mentioned after he had already made the change, to my knowledge.

[cam94509]

I'm arguing that both artists and the public have a moral obligation to leave art as it is.

I'm going to have to disagree. If you were, for instance, to tell a Let's Player that they have the moral obligation not to remove or change their episodes after they were posted, I think they'd probably laugh at you. New editions of books have, for the longest time, fixed errors, and presumably other things that made the author uncomfortable. That weight has never honestly been put on the distribution of new copies by an artist before, and I'm not sure it's a reasonable one to put on them now.

[Method of Madness]

New editions don't make the older editions disappear.

[cam94509]

New editions don't make the older editions disappear.

No, and Jeph's new edition doesn't destroy all the book editions out there, nor any versions you have saved to your computer or printed out already.

[Method of Madness]

But new editions acknowledge that they are new.

[cam94509]

But new editions acknowledge that they are new.

Sure, but I think there is no moral imperative to do so, especially given that they don't ever tell you what has changed where since edition 1.

[pwhodges]

Are the people who argue that Jeph shouldn't have changed it prepared to be fully consistent and argue that he should now put back wording that is clearly understood to be hurtful to some people?  If not, don't you think it's time to let this rather silly discussion go?

[MillionDollar Belt Sander]

It's Jeph's comic.    Jeph can do as he wishes.

That said,  I prefer the original but I FULLY understand why the change was made.  And I am not going to complain or argue the fact.

[Is it cold in here?]

The first sale doctrine might be modified outside the Anglo-American world by an idea I've seen translated as "moral rights" of the author.

Copyright holders can sue under US law for "statutory damages" without having to establish a given degree of economic harm.

As long as Jeph was acting on his own principles (which he's done before) then I see no grounds for me to criticize, which would be idle anyway.

As far as getting across the joke of the strip, English is as far as I know without a verb for "to engage in what Erica Jong would have called a 'zipless fuck', which is a fantasy because the need for consent doesn't evaporate into thin air any more than the clothes do, and to describe it to a friend in such a way as to cause discomfort, producing nervous laughter in much the same way that poop jokes do, even though feces are not particularly comical, but without causing pain to survivors of violence or reducing the impact of the word for a violent crime".

[Method of Madness]

If not, don't you think it's time to let this rather silly discussion go?

I don't think it's a silly discussion at all! I think it turned into an interesting conversation. As for the comic itself, I basically agree with MDBS's post now. I hadn't really thought about it, but now it makes sense. But it's still interesting to think about whether or not he should have changed it, even if we all agree that he has the right to.

[Is it cold in here?]

I too found it interesting but it's near the end of its life cycle.

[cassie]

The discussion has drifted more into copyright laws but it's very possible it was changed to prevent potential triggers. I have no issue with an artist going back and editing his or her work. It's an old comic but it's also very early into the series--I'd hate for someone to start QC from the beginning, come across that, and be turned off from the comic as a whole just from it.

But whatever, I suppose it doesn't really matter at the end of the day.

[Valdís]

It's an old comic but it's also very early into the series--I'd hate for someone to start QC from the beginning, come across that, and be turned off from the comic as a whole just from it.

Yeah, good thing I started around the time Hannelore was introduced and went back later. Wouldn't be a great first impression.

[MillionDollar Belt Sander]

Rape "humor" occupies the same place in my joke-toolbox as Hitler/Holocaust jokes,  abortion wisecracks and dead-baby jokes.    You have to gauge your audience VERY carefully and even then that sort of ultra-dark/gruesome humor makes you kinda... meh... even if you get a chuckle out of people.

While I understand the original joke and how it was intended -- female on male rape does occur and just like male on female rape it's a serious crime.      I get where he was going with the analogy --  I too have wished a certain specific hot-chick would "jump me" and drag me off.      However...  and he has successfully demonstrated it... the joke DOES work without the darker term.

In this case I liked the original joke.  I "got" where he was going with it, and I do get a chuckle out of it.   However I am NOT the majority of the fan base,  nor have I been attacked/traumatized in that way.   Why take the chance on offending people when a slight edit preserves the spirit of the joke.

In the end... as I said above it's Jeph's comic.  He can edit it how he wants and I will still read it.

[MillionDollar Belt Sander]

Well, I only remember it because we went from talking about whether Steve had his junk out to whether old Faye really would have been offended at a casual rape joke.

Ok in-universe explanation:    We saw in a guest strip Faye had access to a time-machine perhaps she was offended by the joke after all -- and she went back to change it.   In doing so she accidentally caused Sara to cease to exist.    If you don't want to count the guest strip,  maybe she used the same technology that Raven hooked into the Esspressosaur.    In fact,  Sara wasn't eaten by a REAL dino, she was done in by a time-traveling espresso-machine SHAPED like one.

All because of a joke that offended Faye. 

Moral of the story is:  Don't piss off women with rape-humor,  especially if there is ANY possibility of time-travel.

[Method of Madness]

I think it would have been funnier with "fuck" instead of "hump" but that's a different argument.