Still broken...but authentically me

"Let go of who you think you're supposed to be and embrace who you are."

Brené Brown

In Remembrance of Things Past

http://fineartamerica.com/featured/in-remembrance-of-things-past-lianne-schneider.html

Perhaps I'll never really exhaust the subject of brokenness because it's part of understanding who I really am and what the process was of becoming me. I promise, however, not to dwell too long on the broken parts...but rather more often on the good that comes of them. I know that there are people who would prefer not to explore the idea of being broken...let alone admit it out loud. The question for me today is what do we gain by being vulnerable, by acknowledging the broken bits and pieces, by accepting our imperfections? 

And for me the answer is authenticity. If I can muster the courage to admit how cracked and broken and mended I am, if I can expose what most would perceive as weakness and allow myself to be vulnerable, then what I gain is the freedom to be truly and authentically myself. I don't have to pretend to be someone else. I don't have to keep trying to be who others expect me to be. For years and years, I was the "rock," the "strong one," the "crisis handler," the "responsible get it all done well" one. I didn't let a soul see how shattered I was at times, how much struggle there was to pretend to a strength I didn't feel. 

My own perception of vulnerability was character weakness. My version of relationship was to be the one in control, the giver, the do-er, the rational and seldom emotional spouse or partner or friend. "Big Girls Don't Cry" should have been my theme song...or alternatively, "Lean on Me." I didn't often let anyone offer me a shoulder to cry on. I never admitted that sometimes the burden was just too heavy and I needed someone to share it with me. If I had a problem - or you did - I could analyze it to death coming up with just the right advice or course of action. But I didn't very often acknowledge how I actually FELT about any of it. What I THOUGHT, yes, but what I FELT, no. The brain could be trusted - the heart with its messy feelings could not.

I could, I thought, prove that. When I fell in love late in my life after the death of my husband, I couldn't seem to help myself from opening the door to all those "feelings." Irrationality was the special of the day and for once, my heart ruled my head. And then...I had my heart totally shattered. One would think, wouldn't you, that I'd fall back on old habits - go back to pretense, to rationality, to cover up? But that's not what happened...once the door to a feeling heart was open, I couldn't close it again. And I realized that broken or not, I didn't want to go back to that inauthentic person I'd been. So it is that I learned this most valuable lesson: (I post this for a dear new friend - you'll know who you are!!)

HEARTS WERE MEANT TO BREAK

Hearts were meant to break

Love…requited…bursts them wide open

expanding them ever outward with the

awesome power of the big bang,

photon upon photon of love light -

an endless grace, that energy moving toward

the sacred consummation of intimate union.

And when stars cavort and gaily pour

the glittering dust of diamonds

into the space that love has opened

to receive it, a heart so fills with light

that it must split asunder to make room

for the more of love, the overflowing

river of it, the numinous, luminous constellations

of love light dancing through the cosmos.

Love…unrequited…breaks it open wider still…

transforming brokenness into beatitudes,

slivers of past sorrows that now sparkle

like shards of glass catching moonlight.

But the shattered heart remembers,

with deepening gratitude, its shattering,

having tried with such determination

to share its rounded fullness with another

and found it breaking on the hard, square edges

of someone’s heart not open yet.

There is no way to put it back together.

Now broken, it moves ever outward

like the universe,  which is itself

Love’s energy radiant with grace.

© 2013 Lianne Schneider 

So, I can say truthfully, that though I'm a mended (or mending) version of who I was, I think I was blessed to be mended with gold as I said the other day. Admitting that I'm always vulnerable now, that I can be hurt, that I feel things not only lets me be authentically who I am without pretense...but strangely enough my vulnerability gives the people I love the courage to be vulnerable too and it's there, in that shared vulnerability, that true and honest and loving and joyful relationships are born. 

 

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

http://fineartamerica.com/featured/joseph-brant-after-stuart-lianne-schneider.html

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