Reply #142: No, he didn't change "the perspective."

[Tansy_Gold]

I would not go so far as to say you don't know a lot about art, but I would probably say that you might not be exactly an expert.

Churchill did a mirror-image flip and that is not a "change of perspective." He did not look at the same scene from a higher or lower vantage point, or from the rear or the side. He just flipped it. That is not "an interpretation." Sheesh.

If he had made the riders Mongols under Ghenghis Khan and the shrubbery into rocks and the snow into sand, that MIGHT be an "interpretation." This, on the other hand, is a fucking copy.

The riders are in the same (relative) positions, and there are no additions or deletions. The shrubbery is the same, the perspective is the same, i.e. vanishing point, horizon, etc.

It's a copy.

They guy who wrote profound things you agree with is not perfect. He is not the victim of a Rovian campaign or of RW extremists.

He set up a "foundation" and under its aegis had his ex-wife rewrite Prof. Fay Cohen's article for inclusion in the U.S. edition of Churchill's book, to which Churchill wrote the "Introduction." As the editor/compiler, Churchill is responsible for the contents of the book. If he commissioned an infringing work, he's still liable because he knew it was an infringement.

The article from the Denver Post contains enough verbatim or near-verbatim text to suggest that the Churchill/Guerrero text is an infringement. Citing the original is not always sufficient escape from a charge of infringement; citing too much or failure to inject anything original can produce a verdict of infringement even if the words are substantially changed. That MAY be why Cohen and Dalhousie have not gone after Churchill himself directly for the infringement but instead are relying on the publicity to inflict more permanent damage to his career than a minor lawsuit for a paltry sum in monetary damages.

I contend there's sufficient evidence that Churchill violated copyright law, and that he did so knowingly, for personal gain rather than to make a statement about intellectual property rights. I won't pass judgment on anything else he's done because I have insufficient evidence. I don't know what he said about 9/11 or about his claims to Native American status or anything else.

On the evidence I've seen and based on what I know of copyright law, I'd judge him guilty of infringing on Mails and Cohen.