does anyone else find it odd that this whole thing is about a photograph of miles davis; an artist whos entire career was based on 'illegally' appropriating popular songs and making new music out of them?

Or even that photography in and of itself is inherantly appropriative?

I hope this guys name becomes synonymous with 'hypocrite'.

Well, you could technically make the argument that almost every song has elements "appropriated" from an earlier song. You could say every rock musician was just stealing licks from 12 bar blues, but that would be besides the point, imo.

it's amazing how people harness copyright law as a moneymaking tool now. It makes me wonder if there is any purpose left to it at all (aside from buying Jay's daughter a new room, of course).

A lot of people seem to be insisting on a baseline assumption that Baio took a chance, and was unlucky enough to get nailed. That's not really the case.

-snip-

The Wikipedia entry on fair use is worth reading, and actually has a section that (in my view, and I'm sure in Andy Baio's view too) sums up the problem here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_as_a_defense wrote:

...some copyright owners frequently make claims of infringement even in circumstances where the fair use defense would likely succeed in hopes that the user will refrain from the use rather than spending resources in his defense.

You know, I think there might be a point here worth looking at. The wikipedia supports the reasonable assumption that copyright holders often use infringement as a profit source. Doesn't really matter how fair your fair use is if you don't have the time/money to fight it in court? Unfortunately law isn't altruistic, it is a tool to be wielded by those with the deepest pockets.

I don't think Baio was taking an uninformed risk per se but the pixel art recreation of the Maisel photo was obviously backed by a rather hopeful reading of fair use. I would rather say imprudent than unlucky.

I would also say, I have very, very strong feelings about copyright and I am not a fan in the slightest of how Maisel / the US legal system / copyright law have treated Baio. He seems like a genuinely awesome guy who had a really really awesome idea but got screwed over by "the man".

Or even that photography in and of itself is inherantly appropriative?.

i can agree to some extent, but mostly just in documentary photography...look at man ray's photographs and youd be hard-pressed to consider it appropriation in any real sense (or for that matter any photographer that gets creative with studio lighting, multiple exposures, sandwiching negatives, etc)

Or even that photography in and of itself is inherantly appropriative?

I hope this guys name becomes synonymous with 'hypocrite'.

Similarly, copyright law permits reproductions of, and references to, copyrighted works, without permission, in certain contexts. Kind Of Bloop's sleeve art was produced in accordance with this understood aspect of the law, and was legitimately believed by Baio to have fallen well within those accepted contexts. Baio in his mind was not taking a risk, was not trying to get away with anything.

The Wikipedia entry on fair use is worth reading, and actually has a section that (in my view, and I'm sure in Andy Baio's view too) sums up the problem here:

It's sad, but until we have some kind of copyright reform in the States, there's nothing anyone can do besides be extremely careful with this stuff unless you can afford to defend your stance.

While the fact that this wasn't a simple case of photoshop-effect clusterfuck can be easily proven in court, only needing to get the artist up there explaining his process and maybe showing a few WIP images here and there, Baio did say that defending his claim of fair use was waaaaaaaay too expensive. And apparently Maisel is described here as "an aggressive copyright defender", so he must have known how expensive defending the case actually was.

So, determining that Baio was better off just handing a small amount of cash over and getting it over with, he went into full aggressive mode to get the quick buck. He might have not cared about how much Baio would be screwed because of this move, because most likely Maisel was actually a little ticked off that no one asked for his permission.

It's pretty obvious, really.

So the Kind Of Bloop art is definitely original, not just a modified picture. Unless there's some insanely awesome filter nobody knows about...

I know it's pretty obvious that it isn't a shop, but I just thought it would be nice to see how different a shop would look. Fairly different, it seems...

Lowering the resolution doesn't prove the cover isn't a modified image. There's many filters that will get a similar result.

But things like the texture on the tie prove that it was redone manually, or at least that some parts were.

Yeah, i really don't understand how anyone could consider this a 'shop. You can tell just by looking at Miles' tie alone that this was hand drawn.

eh? i think the whole point was that it isn't hand-drawn. hand-drawing would be take put the original in front of you and recreate it from scratch. posterizing, pixelating and then some manual correction is not hand-drawing (though still a work of art imo)

that's very true though.

Certain details match up perfectly, which is what leads me to believe that he drew the cover over the original. Look how the lighter skin tones match up almost perfectly in the two images. Same with reflections on the trumpet shades on Miles' jacket. What does not match up perfectly, obviously, is the pattern on the tie.

err, you mean it's kinda like throwing shitty vocals or raps on other people's chiptunes? ;P

that, of course, is a very valid point. also i don't believe it's right to squeeze 40.000 bucks out of someone for a piece of derivative art. but at the moment, these are the rules, and at least the same rules should apply to everyone.