NationStates Jolt Archive

A month ago, I made a thread about this proposal.
After the gentle and great advices of members of United Nations, The Intellectual Disorder of Feliz, is proud to present the return of "Freedom of Art".
I'd like to have your feelings and advices about this remake.
Thanks!

"The United Nations notes that:
- Practice of Art is one of the first human expressions,
- Art processes are not restricted to nations' borders and, so, are universal,
- Each culture, nation and regions have developed different art concepts, making impossible the lecture of the world artistic production as one entity,
- Define a production as art only basing on its beauty is restrictive,

The United Nations affirms that:
- Only can be considered as an art production, an esthetic creation aiming to be exposed or performed with the objective to cause sensitive reactions or physical interactions.
- Art production exists before its achievements or its publishing.

To protect the freedom of art, The United Nations decides that:
- Having an artistic activity is a right for all, whatever the form it takes, in the limit of the civil and international laws applicable.
- The production, export, displacement, negotiation, sell, purchase of an artistic production can't be forbidden and prosecuted. Nations have the possibility to charge any financial transaction of art production.
- The Artist keeps the right to have his name juxtaposed to the artistic production.
- No governmental institution is suited to forbid or privilege any form or style of art in the detriment of another.
- No governmental institution has the power to proceed at the requisition of any form of artistic production.
- The creator have the exclusive right to dispose of his creation and use it in a pecuniary destination.
- The Artist keeps the intellectual property of the artistic production. No reproduction, changes or alteration in the physical aspect of the original production can be done without the former artist authorization. The intellectual property must end after the death of the creator. Each nation (location of the creation) is free to choose the duration between the creator's death and the "public domain" attribution.
- By selling a production, the artist keeps the intellectual property, but loses the right of disposal.
- Alteration of the original production may be considered as an artistic production in the condition it can be recognized as an individual and distinct performance.
- The United Nations has the duty to finance the preservation of exceptional productions to make them remain for ever."

Great!

One tiny thing -

"- The creator have the exclusive right to dispose of his creation and use it in a pecuniary destination."

You should put in that once he sells it, he can go to the buyers house and destroy it.

:) Otherwise, good job! You've done a lot of work since the last one.

Supported.

Thanks! I'll add this one to the proposals.
But, in which category should I propose it?

Run it through a spellchecker?

Run it through a spellchecker?
No, I didn't, and my english is not very good.
:(

I like it. Supported!

"- The creator have the exclusive right to dispose of his creation and use it in a pecuniary destination."

You should put in that once he sells it, he can go to the buyers house and destroy it.


Thanks!
I added a line about this, changes some mistakes with a spellcheck thing.
It is now a proposal! Please support "Freedom of Art"!

jI agree, human rights are the basic topic (or should be) of all nations. No one should be silenced!

Your definition of art is too broad.
As an intellectual exercise, think about what the lawyers in my nationstate will claim falls under your definition of art.

recreational drugs, certainly.
pornography, of course.
violent crimes, at least in some cases; serial killings, without a doubt.
insider trading? i bet they'll try.
tax cheating? i bet they'll win.



- The United Nations has the duty to finance the preservation of exceptional productions to make them remain for ever."

WHAT?
How do you propose to accomplish this?
The UN doesn't have any money! It doesn't have the power to tax.

How do you expect it to come up with the money to pay for all the Rodins and Matisses and Calders in all the worlds? How do you expect the UN to preserve exceptional performance art or installations?

And why should it?

Your definition of art is too broad.
As an intellectual exercise, think about what the lawyers in my nationstate will claim falls under your definition of art.

recreational drugs, certainly.
pornography, of course.
violent crimes, at least in some cases; serial killings, without a doubt.
insider trading? i bet they'll try.
tax cheating? i bet they'll win.

Please refer to the defintion. We are talking about aesthetism.
"Only can be considered as an art production, an aesthetic creation aiming to be exposed or performed with the objective to cause sensitive reactions or physical interactions".
If your nation feels that porn or tax cheating is an aesthetic performance, it concerns your own nation.


WHAT?
How do you propose to accomplish this?
The UN doesn't have any money! It doesn't have the power to tax.

How do you expect it to come up with the money to pay for all the Rodins and Matisses and Calders in all the worlds? How do you expect the UN to preserve exceptional performance art or installations?

And why should it?

This was an open door for a further proposal. This one is I think enough for the moment. It's damn too long. But, we can't talk about intellectual property without answering the question "And what will happened to the chef d'eouvre once it fells in public domain?"

Psychedelic Happenings support this proposal.

I was wondering, is there any tactic to attract support of delegates?
This proposal will end in 22 hours and it's on page 6!
Thanks!

Consider this proposal supported by Nasicournian Borderlands.

Opposed. My nation holds the right to bar the export of all products. And it bars the export of everything except raw materials to maintain econmic stability.