Friday, February 28, 2014

Birds - to brighten a winter's day

Birds are an indicator of the environment. 
If the birds are in trouble, we know we'll soon be in trouble.
Roger Tory Peterson

Cheery Red Cardinal
http://lianne-schneider.artistwebsites.com/featured/cheery-red-cardinal-lianne-schneider.html

There aren't many things that can cheer a short, cold, often gray winter day as wonderfully as seeing colorful birds at the feeder outside the window. We're lucky here - we have about 4 pair of cardinals (though one did die the other day I'm sorry to say), blue jays, dozens of goldfinches - which are actually fairly green in winter, ordinary house finches with their red heads, an occasional purple martin, little red wrens, woodpeckers, nuthatches, pretty little titmice, the duller sparrows and chickadees galore. Some of these darling visitors add song to the day as well - cardinals have a particularly sweet and appealing song. 

There are a few myths about birds that winter over - and Birds and Blooms has done a nice job of putting those to rest. The first myth and probably a great concern for many of us this particularly cold winter is that birds will freeze to death if temperatures drop far below zero as they have here many times this year. The fact is, according to the website, birds are very well equipped to "survive the coldest temperatures. They store fat during the short days of winter to keep themselves warm during the long nights. During those freezing nights, they fluff their feathers to trap heat and slow their metabolism to conserve energy. They also look for good places to roost, whether it’s a birdhouse, natural tree cavity, grass thicket, evergreen or shrub."  If you'd be interested in dispelling several other myths about winter birds, you can read the rest here:  http://www.birdsandblooms.com/birding/birding-basics/winter-birds-myths-facts/

Unfortunately, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, "birds across the United States are facing more – and more severe – threats to their survival today than ever before." One of the loveliest is a songbird whose habitat is only in northern Michigan - the Kirkland Warbler. There had been hope to take it off the list but it's still on it right now. Fortunately, here in Western New York, none of our winter songbirds are endangered though in really cold winters like this one, they seem to be less numerous. It's important to keep various kinds of bird feeders - nyjer seed, black oil sunflower, mixed seed, cracked corn and even peanuts - filled daily. Winter birds store food internally to create heat. So if you notice a run on your feeders on any given day - except the temperatures to dive!! Let's look out for our feathered friends who bring us so much enjoyment all year round. 

 

Thursday, February 27, 2014

An Apple a Day....

"Eat an apple on going to bed, you'll keep the doctor from his bread."
Pembrokeshire Proverb 1886

Still Life with Apples

We've all heard the old saying, "An apple a day keeps the doctor away," but where did it come from and is there any truth in it? You'd think the answer to both questions would be relatively simple but tracking the origins of a "proverb" isn't as easy as it seems. Some assume this to have originated as one of the proverbs in "Poor Richard's Almanac" by Benjamin Franklin but existing copies don't validate that claim. Others have suggested it came from a horror story of sorts in the American West in the early 1800s, or from an old wives' tale in Great Britain as far back as 1670. However, the general consensus from the most reputable sources I could find trace the origin to a Pembrokeshire, Wales, UK proverb. 

The February 1866 edition of Notes and Queries magazine includes this:

"A Pembrokeshire proverb. Eat an apple on going to bed, And you'll keep the doctor from earning his bread." A number of variants of the rhyme were in circulation around the turn of the 20th century. In 1913, Elizabeth Wright recorded a Devonian dialect version and also the first known mention of the version we use now, in Rustic Speech and Folk-lore: "Ait a happle avore gwain to bed, An' you'll make the doctor beg his bread; or as the more popular version runs: An apple a day Keeps the doctor away."


There's also a poem - or rather a nursery rhyme - that was popular in the UK years ago that includes this proverb:           

    Apple a day keeps the doctor away,

    Apple in the morning, doctor’s warning.

    Roast apple at night, starves the doctor outright.

    Eat an apple going to bed – knock the doctor on the head.

    Three each day, 7 a week – ruddy apple, ruddy cheek.

Origins aside, is there any truth to the saying? Apparently there is. According to the blog at www.fitday.com apples have lots of health benefits beginning with the fact that they have no cholesterol, are low in fat and sodium, low in calories (80 for a medium size apple), have 22 grams of carbs but most of those are complex carbs for sustained energy and a positive impact on balancing sugar/insulin levels. They are also very high in vitamins A, E and betacarotene which aid in suppressing free radicals and which have also been proven to help prevent serious conditions like diabetes, cardiovascular disease and asthma. Throw in the immune system boosting benefits of the vitamin C in apples, the pectin that adds fiber and aids in digestive health and boron - a nutrient that promotes both brain and bone health - and you have a nearly perfect food. Finally, apples contain another nutrient called Quercetin, a flavonoid which "has the potential to prevent many different types of cancer, ranging from breast cancer to lung cancer. It may also be effective in combating free radicals that can cause age-related diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease."

 There's even a bit more good news for the health conscious - especially women. A study of post-menopausal women between the ages of 45 and 65 showed that those who ate an apple a day versus eating dried prunes, lowered bad cholesterol (LDL) by 23% more AND lost an average of 3.3 pounds. And for the arthritis sufferers out there - apples also lower the production of pro-inflammatory molecules in the body. I actually didn't put this all together until recently but I was stricken with an inflammatory arthritis - without the presence of the rheumatoid factor but equally painful - when I was very young and was taking cortisone injections before I was 30 in my knees. Then I heard an old wives' tale about taking a teaspoon of apple cider vinegar in a glass of cool water each morning and after two weeks, I was pain free for the first time in years without aspirin or other anti-inflammatories. I wish I could still take it but the acid aggravates an ulcer just as aspirin does. But I understand now why it worked so well back then. Fortunately, I can still eat apples - and I try to eat one a day even though to be honest, the good ones have become terribly expensive!! Still, I have to endorse this old saying - "an apple a day keeps the doctor away." It certainly can help.

 

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Questions of copyright and the public domain


"The public domain is not a place. A work of authorship is in the “public domain” if it is no longer under copyright protection or if it failed to meet the requirements for copyright protection. Works in the public domain may be used freely without the permission of the former copyright owner."
                                                                                                           (US Copyright Office quoted in The Legal Genealogist)

Joseph Brant After Stuart


Back from the Trillium Gallery opening and with the need to prepare my art work for shipment to St. Jude Childrens' Research hospital, I realized that I still had some questions in my own mind about authenticity, copyright and public domain. I have addressed the topic of public domain briefly in a previous post but it bears repeating and extending.  In a number of social media forums lately, I have run into heated discussions about copyright infringement (particularly on images or paintings), DMCA take down letters, and the recourse an artist might have if his/her work is stolen or used without permission. A few of these discussions involved someone's use of a trademark image - such as a Disney character - where the artist in question simply changed the medium in which the original artwork was published and then put their own name and copyright claim on the resulting product. Since I do a good deal of work from what are referred to as public domain images, I thought a full discussion was in order. I also want to clear up some confusion about public domain and U.S. copyright law

It's very important to note that copyright and trademark are not the same thing - the name of a company like "Coca-Cola," the figure of Mickey Mouse, etc. are not just originally copyrighted titles or art works but are registered trademarks which are renewable every 10 years indefinitely. Most well-known logos, figures like the Geico Gecko are trademarks that will be carefully renewed as long as the companies are in business. To use them in an art work without permission makes an artist liable to a a lawsuit for trademark infringement. Not long ago McDonald's successfully sued a small Mom and Pop restaurant for using a sign post too similar to the McDonald's arches. 

Actual copyright law is quite clear in both the U.S. and Canada. No copyright exists on any artwork or literary work published in the US. before 1923 or on work where the author/artist died more than 70 years ago. (In Canada, it's only 50 years). All copyrights that might have existed prior to that date have now expired. The original artwork or literary work has passed into the public domain - meaning anyone is free to use it in whole or in part without permission and to adapt it or change it in any way they choose and without identifying the original creator

The law is, however, much more complicated concerning works published since 1964 and the best I can determine is that copyrights applied for between 1964 and 1977 automatically renewed and the total protection is good for 95 years. For work copyrighted since 1978, the protection extends 75 years or until 2053 at the earliest. There are some exceptions, of course, that involve work purposely released into the public domain by the creator of the work or work produced by a government employee while in the course of his/her duties. For example, a National Park Service ranger who takes photos which are then posted on the park's website or in brochures cannot copyright those photographs. They are automatically in the public domain. However, it is still unethical to take that original photo without any adaptations or significant and original changes and claim it as one's own. The usual etiquette is to say that the image is in the public domain courtesy of the National Park Service and to name the photographer if he/she is known.

When working from public domain art or documents, an artist/writer creates something called a derivative work or a compilation to which SOME copyright protection can be applied. But the point is, according to section 103 of the US Copyright Act, "The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the pre-existing material. The copyright in such work is independent of and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership or subsistence of any copyright protection in the pre-existing material." In other words, you cannot slap your name on an older work or a public domain work with no changes or adaptations and copyright that original work. I can't take a Monet and duplicate it exactly like the original (create a reproduction) or take a faithful photographic copy of that art work and copyright it. 

Again the usual etiquette, even when making significant changes to the original in terms of style, medium, elements of the composition, etc. is to acknowledge the original artist in the title or description. Just because my use of something in the public domain is legal, it doesn't make it ethical to use it without change or acknowledgement. For example, if I use (as I have) a pen and ink or lithograph or even a painting from the 1800s, I could title the piece "Joseph Brant after Stuart" as I have done above, acknowledging that the portrait is an adaptation or recreation or reproduction of a Gilbert Stuart painting. Or in my artist's description or certificate of authenticity I would acknowledge Stuart as the original artist and give whatever information I might have about that original work. Since I made significant changes to the original in terms of background, medium, color, etc., the work is a derivative work and it's dishonest to say otherwise. But I am entitled to copyright the changes I made so the resultant artwork cannot be copied, duplicated or used in another derivative...another artist would have to go back to the original portrait and make his/her own changes. 

Even if the original artist is unknown, it's still unethical to represent a public domain work as entirely one's own. However, we all know that there is a big difference between what is legal and what is ethical and we cannot force people to act ethically in all circumstances. Unfortunately, in some cases, it appears that William Faulkner was right when he said, "An artist is completely amoral in that he will rob, beg, borrow, or steal from anybody and everybody to get the work done."  
There is a blog I follow "religiously" called "The Legal Genealogist" that discusses these and similar issues daily. I find it enormously helpful in crossing the minefields of rights, public domain, trademark, copyright and derivative work and avoiding the possibility of misrepresenting myself even when I'm within the law. From the February 24 blog post, the author says, "The copyright in a derivative work covers only the additions, changes, or other new material appearing for the first time in the work. Protection does not extend to any preexisting material, that is, previously published or previously registered works or works in the public domain or owned by a third party...". Read the rest here:

http://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog/2014/02/25/copyright-and-the-republished-work/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheLegalGenealogist+%28The+Legal+Genealogist%29

Background stock from FrantisekSpurny