Vittore BARONI (I): - If any dispute arises, the person with the smartest lawyers will win! Personally, I am against copyright in general, its an outdated concept in a post-modern world run by digital technologies, that function through the massive dissemination, download and reproduction of data.
György GALÁNTAI (H): - Artists usually do not bother with copyright, it is the owners who do so. The practice of copyright is an attack against the spiritual value of an art work, for the author and his/her work is a gift from nature; and the present copyright is unfit for defending it. In the distant future copyright will be replaced by the right of the "author" when the institutions and/or the states will offer the "authors" conditions in which they can work for their full self-realization for the benefit of mankind. In this sense there will be no authors any more but permuters.
"Authorship" is a result of a "critical" decision regarding the product, so "copyright is institutionalized criticism. "The words critique and criminal come from the Greek krinein and the Latin cernere, which mean something like "break" in the sense of "break apart" or "break the law." We have known these double meanings at least since the Enlightenment (and especially since Kant), as it became clear that the one criticized saw the critic as a criminal, as did the critic the criticized. To read a text critically is to take the writer to be criminal and to commit a crime against him. The whole thing is steeped in a criminal ambience." (Vilém Flusser).
The goal of permutable installations is to be received and then to be changed and passed over. If the word 'author' is replaced by the word 'permuter', and 'criticism' is replaced by 'discourse', we will perhaps use the word 'exchange' instead of 'copyright'.
Július KOLLER (SK): - It depends on copyright laws of the different countries. The installation is the original, not the documentation. And the project can be original. But when an installation has been long ago, or doesn't exist anymore, the documentation gains a value, too.
Willi R. MELNIKOV-STARQUIST (RUS): - It's hard for me to discuss about the copyright of installations. When you are ready to demonstrate your composition you often feel some fear of thieves-in-art who steal your ideas. The majority of Russian artists (excluding the so-called "artists of the Establishment", of course!) are unprotected against their ideas being taken away.
Mit MITROPOULOS (GR): - People who know my work have reacted against occasional attempts to copy it. People who did copy have been unable to pursue the work anyway (whether in the USA or in Greece).
Emilio MORANDI (I): - Usually my installations stay in package in my archive or stay in site with only copyright of the video-photo documentation.
Tatsumi ORIMOTO (J): - I don't need copyright of installation in document.
Alberto RIZZI (I): - No copyright on art, please.
Péter RÓNAI (SK): - Similarly to the "preserved" (prisoned) installation - the copyright of a non-preserved artwork is the same; even if the author is uncertain, vague or unknown! The same applies to a known artist's non-existing artwork.
Matthew ROSE (F): - I've always encouraged other artists to steal or borrow my work (as I do it with theirs).
Baudhuin SIMON (B): - No copyright, no fees, no elitism, no jury only exchange, help, fraternity.
Rod SUMMERS (NL): - Copyright in art is a virtual minefield, it should apply to the documentation. I have a problem with a major museum that has reproduced an installation I made for the museum in 1975 and the new version gives no credit to my original work even though the similarity is obvious and I have video and printed documentation of the original creation and placing of the installation. The question is do I bother to make a fuss?
W. Mark SUTHERLAND (CDN): - To the best of my knowledge extensive documentation is the only way to safeguard copyright.
László ÚJVÁROSSY (RO): - Copyright applies to works you find worthy for it.