*E
Offline

The creator of the successful Miles Davis chiptune cover album  Kind of Bloop, Andy Baio, was recently accused of copyright infringement by Jay Maisel who took the photograph of Miles Davis in the original album, Kind of Blue.  Baio asked a friend to make a pixel-art version of the album cover as the cover for Kind of Bloop.
Here  are the two covers

     It's pretty sad since Baio put so much work into the album, organizing it, licensing all of the covered songs, and now he is stuck paying around $40,000 in legal fees.

It breaks my heart that a project I did for fun, on the side, and out of pure love and dedication to the source material ended up costing me so much - emotionally and financially. For me, the chilling effect is palpably real. I've felt irrationally skittish about publishing almost anything since this happened. But the right to discuss the case publicly was one concession I demanded, and I felt obligated to use it. I wish more people did the same - maybe we wouldn't all feel so alone.

Here's the full story

edit: fixed a fact (bBaio did not make the artwork, his friend did)

Last edited by *E (Jun 23, 2011 8:16 pm)

TraceKaiser
Offline
Whitley Bay, England

So fucked up...

herr_prof
Offline
Unsubscribe

Actually he settled.. at over $30k in damages, and he still cant use the art.

TraceKaiser
Offline
Whitley Bay, England

It's so ridiculous that he couldn't afford to even dispute the case. Hafhgjakfhgeiua I hate the legal system sometimes.

nordloef
Offline
sweden

slapping some pixelation on it, and then calling it your own

Battle Lava
Offline

edit: nvm

Last edited by Battle Lava (Jun 23, 2011 5:13 pm)

shitbird
Offline

What a piece of shit!!!!   Where is this mansion? I'd love to slash his tires.

Zen Albatross
Offline
Brooklyn, NY

Here's the really fucked up part: Andy had to successfully bargain for the right to publish any of this information, as part of the settlement.

Now think for a second about how many entitled geriatric fuckjobs abuse copyright law each year without anyone knowing about it.

It'd be one thing if litigation weren't expensive, but as Rhizome pointed out in their article, defending "Fair Use" can cost up to $310,000 for claims under $1 mil. >>> http://www.patentinsurance.com/iprisk/aipla-survey/

tl;dr - Donate to EFF: https://www.eff.org/

Last edited by Zen Albatross (Jun 23, 2011 7:20 pm)

herr_prof
Offline
Unsubscribe
shitbird wrote:

What a piece of shit!!!!   Where is this mansion? I'd love to slash his tires.

http://nymag.com/realestate/vu/08/09/maisel/

Please dont slash his tires.

AdamGetsAwesome
Offline
Boulder, CO

One of my favorite buildings in NYC. I had no idea.

*E
Offline

Andy Baio writes about the legal battle

Saskrotch
Offline
Chicago IL

well know you know where he lives, guys

an0va
Offline

Posted by a grumpy facebook friend of mine:

So the guy is mad he got sued for copyright infringment for the creation of an unlicensed derivative work of the photo? Fair use is an "affirmative defense" which, saving you the legal mumbo-jumbo, means you buy-your-ticket-you-take-your-ride. Even if your fair use defense is a "winner," you have to spend lots of time and money litigating it. The guy clearly knew he could get a license (as he did to cover the songs), and shouldn't cry foul when he takes his calculated risk with the cover and loses...

thoughts?

Natty
Offline
FlashHeart

Oh. My. God. I love that house. What a dream. I want to be Mr. Maisel's friend just so I can get invited to his parties.

calmdownkidder
Offline
Liverpool, UK

I got the new artwork for the album sorted.

Last edited by calmdownkidder (Jun 23, 2011 10:10 pm)

nitro2k01
Offline
Sweeeeeeden
an0va wrote:

Posted by a grumpy facebook friend of mine:

So the guy is mad he got sued for copyright infringment for the creation of an unlicensed derivative work of the photo? Fair use is an "affirmative defense" which, saving you the legal mumbo-jumbo, means you buy-your-ticket-you-take-your-ride. Even if your fair use defense is a "winner," you have to spend lots of time and money litigating it. The guy clearly knew he could get a license (as he did to cover the songs), and shouldn't cry foul when he takes his calculated risk with the cover and loses...

thoughts?

Andy addresses this very point in the blog post:

Andy Baio wrote:

And it's worth noting that trying to license the image would have been moot. When asked how much he would've charged for a license, Maisel told his lawyer that he would never have granted a license for the pixel art. "He is a purist when it comes to his photography," his lawyer wrote. "With this in mind, I am certain you can understand that he felt violated to find his image of Miles Davis, one of his most well-known and highly-regarded images, had been pixellated, without his permission, and used in a number of forms including on several websites accessible around the world."

Your friend is right as far as facts go. Fair use defense can cost you a lot of time and money. Counter-questions: Don't you (or your friend) see a problem with legislation that can be used for basically extortion in the way that copyright laws can? Is fair use of any real significance, if you need deep pockets and expensive lawyers in order to use it as a defense? Do you not see the flaw in the legal system?