Skip to main content
Log in

The colorization controversy

  • Articles
  • Published:
The Journal of Value Inquiry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  • Anonymous (1991). “Charles Powell; Headed USC Program in Film Producing,”Los Angeles Times (2 June 1991), p. A32, Obituary.

  • Arcomano, Nicholas (April 1980). Choreography and Copyright, Part One,”Dance Magazine, p. 58.

  • “Balanchine, Part II” (1984).Dance in America, PBS.

  • Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, Pub.L. No. 100–568, 102 Stat. 2853.

  • Canby, Vincent (1986). “‘Colorization’ Is Defacing Black and White Film Classics,”The New York Times (2 November 1986), Sec. 2, pp. 21.

  • Carroll, Noël, (1988).Philosophical Problems of Classical Film Theory. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • “Choreography by Balanchine, Part I” (1977).Dance in America, PBS.

  • Daniels, Charles B. (1990). “Note on Colorization,”British Journal of Aesthetics 30.1: 68–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, John (1987). “Editorial,”Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 45.3: 227–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiss, Owen M. (1991). “State Activism and State Censorship,”Yale Law Journal 100: 2087–2106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fried, Charles (1992). “The New First Amendment Jurisprudence: A Threat to Liberty,”University of Chicago Law Review 59: 225–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldblatt, David (1976). “Do Works of Art Have Rights?”,Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 35.1: 69–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hein, Hilde (1978). “Aesthetics [sic] Rights: Vindication and Vilification,”Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 37.2: 169–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, David N. (1989). “On Colorizing Films: A Venture into Applied Aesthetics,”Metaphilosophy 20.3–4: 332–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, Caryn (1990). “Fighting Film Coloring With a Label as Weapon,”The New York Times (6 November 1990), p. Bl.

  • Janson, H.W. (1962).History of Art. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, Roy S. (1991). “The Berne Convention and American Protection of Artists' Moral Rights: Requirements, Limits, and Misconceptions,”Columbia-VLA Journal of Law & the Arts 15.3: 417–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leibowitz, Flo (1991). “Movie Colorization and the Expression of Mood,”Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 49.4: 363–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, Jerrold (1990). Colourization Ill-Defended,”British Journal of Aesthetics 30.1: 62–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipman, Jean and Richard Marshall (1978).Art About Art. New York: Dutton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preservation Act (Pub. L, 100–446, Title 1, § 1–13, codified at 2 U.S.C. 178).

  • Saito, Yuriko (1989). “Contemporary Aesthetic Issue: The Colorization Controversy,”Journal of Aesthetic Education 23.2: 21–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparshott, Francis (1983). “Why Artworks Have No Right to Have Rights,”Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 42.1: 5–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tormey, Alan (1973). “Aesthetic Rights,”Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 32.2: 163–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warhol, Andy (1963).Mona Lisa. Silkscreen on canvas, 128 inches high × 82 inches wide. Reprinted in Lipman and Marshall, 1978.

  • Young, James O. (1988). “In Defence of Colourization,British Journal of Aesthetics 28.4: 368–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, James O. (1989). “Destroying Works of Art,”Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 47.4: 367–373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, James O. (1992). “Still More in Defense of Colorization”Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 50.3: 245–248.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Van Camp, J. The colorization controversy. J Value Inquiry 29, 447–468 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01237531

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01237531

Navigation