Thanks to Andy Baio, that house is just about to get its 73rd room.
Offline
nitro2k01 wrote:
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?
EXACTLY. This is exactly what I'm getting at, and I do personally see it that way, but it doesn't seem like people are focusing on that part. This needs to be addressed.
Last edited by an0va (Jun 23, 2011 11:38 pm)
Offline
Brooklyn NY US
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?
In a way I think this is Andy Baio's whole point. Creative actions (or really any actions) end up being governed not by what the laws dictate, but by one's ability to maintain a legal fight. The main question -- whether or not the referencing of the photo was in accordance with the law -- becomes totally immaterial, because the question never even reaches a courtroom.
I think what Andy Baio is saying is this: even if you act in accordance with the law, nothing prevents someone from suing you anyway, so nothing protects you from facing the awful choice of spending thousands in a court fight or spending thousands in a settlement. Once the threat of a lawsuit exists, the question is no longer about whether you were right or wrong originally, it's about affording the fight. Regardless of whether it's a fight you asked for, or whether you really "bought a ticket."
The commenter's failing to understand that if you believe you're acting in accordance with the law, you have no reason to think you've "bought your ticket." We drive 50 in a 55 MPH zone; then a cop pulls us over & says we were doing 60. Was that a ticket we bought? We photocopy a chapter from a book for our 20-student class (almost universally seen as falling within the "fair use" exception to copyright laws governing reproduction). Did we buy a ticket there?
It's really up to a court of law to determine whether we did or didn't. But since getting into a court of law means financial ruin for most individuals, settling generally becomes the only viable option, and the party issuing the lawsuit gets their way.
In other words, costs of going to court mean that the mere threat of a lawsuit becomes just as effective a deterrent as the consequences of actually breaking the law, and this means that anyone with the ability to file a lawsuit stands to unduly influence what is and isn't done artistically.
Offline
Bit Shifter wrote:
an0va wrote:Posted by a grumpy facebook friend of mine:
thoughts?
In a way I think this is Andy Baio's whole point. Creative actions (or really any actions) end up being governed not by what the laws dictate, but by one's ability to maintain a legal fight. The main question -- whether or not the referencing of the photo was in accordance with the law -- becomes totally immaterial, because the question never even reaches a courtroom.
I think what Andy Baio is saying is this: even if you act in accordance with the law, nothing prevents someone from suing you anyway, so nothing protects you from facing the awful choice of spending thousands in a court fight or spending thousands in a settlement. Once the threat of a lawsuit exists, the question is no longer about whether you were right or wrong originally, it's about affording the fight. Regardless of whether it's a fight you asked for, or whether you really "bought a ticket."
The commenter's failing to understand that if you believe you're acting in accordance with the law, you have no reason to think you've "bought your ticket." We drive 50 in a 55 MPH zone; then a cop pulls us over & says we were doing 60. Was that a ticket we bought? We photocopy a chapter from a book for our 20-student class (almost universally seen as falling within the "fair use" exception to copyright laws governing reproduction). Did we buy a ticket there?
It's really up to a court of law to determine whether we did or didn't. But since getting into a court of law means financial ruin for most individuals, settling generally becomes the only viable option, and the party issuing the lawsuit gets their way.
In other words, costs of going to court mean that the mere threat of a lawsuit becomes just as effective a deterrent as the consequences of actually breaking the law, and this means that anyone with the ability to file a lawsuit stands to unduly influence what is and isn't done artistically.
Well said. I really feel for Baio now, not even being able to rightfully combat literally just because of $$$.
Offline
Melbourne, Australia
I really like the post on Andy's site.
http://waxy.org wrote:
Extra credit: Where would you draw the line?
(between appropriation an copyright infringement.) This topic is also front page on reddit. Glad that Andy's fight to be able to discuss this in public was not in vain. It seems to be stimulating the conversation he hoped it would.
Offline
hardcore, Australia
I feel strangely about where this money went.
If i draw something at work, it kind of becomes property of my employer, they can do what they want with it. If someone copies that, it's not my position to claim copyrights because I was paid to draw it and sold my rights.
I imagine mr photo man transferred his rights when the record company bought the photo.
Maybe this isn't how the law works, but i'd see it as the studio's property and responsibilty to claim rights rather than his.
i also like mr loefs quote (taken from the article or comments on it?)
nordloef wrote:
slapping some pixelation on it, and then calling it your own
I think this is the same point as above in celsius' post.
At what point does it become an original work or just a reproduction.
Last edited by godinpants (Jun 24, 2011 6:23 am)
Offline
herr_prof wrote:
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.
of course not...I just wish for justice; karma even
I imagine there is a few things that could have been done with the image, to avoid the lawsuit.
On the other hand; Who would've thought someone would have the audacity to come out of the woodworks to ruin someone financially over a photograph?
A photograph used for a tribute of all things.......crooked bastard
Offline
nɐ˙ɯoɔ˙ʎǝupʎs
A music tribute that was endorsed by the owner of the music, no less.
Stings.
Offline
Liverpool, UK
shitbird wrote:
On the other hand; Who would've thought someone would have the audacity to come out of the woodworks to ruin someone financially over a photograph?
A photograph used for a tribute of all things.......crooked bastard
Yeah, it would have been understandable if the guy sent a cease and desist BEFORE deciding to sue, if he was really offended by the use of the picture as opposed to being a greedy bastard.
Offline
Brazil
The thing is nobody ever thought about the photo being an issue. Is kinda sad, cause the music is so good.
Offline
God this is so stupid. Who has the heart to just destroy this guy's bank accounts over a tribute? I don't even understand why one would be offended over someone making a reproduction of his art. If someone took my album and re-did it with real instruments, I'd be delighted! Why doesn't that philosophy hold true to this guy?
I think it would be really cool for the photographer to see his work influencing another's art.
Offline
Frostbyte wrote:
Why doesn't that philosophy hold true to this guy?
In my opinion, the guy saw an opportunity to make some money and had the lawyers to back him.
Like CDK said, if he wasn't after the money and rather, preserving the copyright of the photograph, he could have sent a cease and desist.
Offline
Connecticut USA
Man....I mean, you can't just use a pixel effect on something in Photoshop and then call it original. But at the same time it's like... not even a warning to take it down? Just straight "We are suing you and you are fucked". That's pretty harsh and scary.
Offline
But did he really just throw an effect on it? And where did you hear that he didn't senda cease and desist?
Offline
A gray world of dread
Uhm.. I hope people realize that this isn't just a PS pixel filter. I'm not a pixel pusher, but even I can see it's hand-made. Maybe traced, but deffo not a filter.
Offline
Connecticut USA
Oh, in that case it's a totally different story. I got confused when I read the article. I think the examples where they degraded the pixels on it confused me haha.
Last edited by MisfitChris (Jun 24, 2011 5:10 pm)