ilovefuzz.com

dubkitty wrote:you've never negotiated rates with a professional? i've negotiated rates with attorneys.

Yeah man, a little quick talking and you can turn 200,000 in court fees into $50 and a coupla free Denny's grand slams.


I'm on Chicago time and need to crash, I don't even know how something like this became an argument but for reals man, we're not your enemy and our views aren't that homogenized. We all just like the fuzz.

dubkitty wrote:and it seems to me that you and others are rushing to embrace Baio because of his "oh poor me" presentation, and because y'all by and large accept the modern notions that copyright means nothing and that it's basically OK, as multiple people have said explicitly here, to steal from the rich.

you're right, i've only read what i could find on the internet. my thread title is certainly a knee-jerk reaction to the story as i read it, which is very one-sided. as for the case itself, i just can't understand how kind of bloop's cover wouldn't fall under fair use. i'd feel the same whether or not money had anything to do with it. it's a creative tribute album, and part of it is a creative tribute to the album cover. i don't understand the criminality of that, or how anyone could want to take someone to court over it.

Copyright is an archaic concept.

Damn Bar Association! I'd fucking take that case for $100, shit even a 12 pack of PBR(bottles please!). I might not do very well having never sat through any sort of court proceedings, but maybe I'd get lucky and have a hot lady judge who'd let my dong tip the scales of justice just a bit("You got a thong on under those robes?").

I don't know much about the case, but it's just gotta burn to have someone go so far out of there way to sue you for something you worked so hard on. I know I wouldn't have payed that much in legal fees even if I had a great chance of winning, and his chances didn't look the best.

I'm don't know much about court though, this is just what I thought about the article.

kaboom wrote:it's a creative tribute album, and part of it is a creative tribute to the album cover. i don't understand the criminality of that, or how anyone could want to take someone to court over it.

part of copyright law is the doctrine that if you don't aggressively defend your copyrights, it can be used as evidence in future defenses that you weren't serious about protecting your rights. that's why, e.g., corporations are so pissy about their brand name becoming the standard term for a class of product, and why brand names have thus been replaced by generic terms such as Frisbee/flying disc, Kleenex/tissue, Xerox/photocopy, etc. due to corporate legal demands on media. simply put, if Meisel doesn't go after the Bloop guy, anyone who rips off anything from his portfolio can use the fact that he let the Bloop guy off as evidence they should get off, too.

dubkitty wrote:

kaboom wrote:it's a creative tribute album, and part of it is a creative tribute to the album cover. i don't understand the criminality of that, or how anyone could want to take someone to court over it.

part of copyright law is the doctrine that if you don't aggressively defend your copyrights, it can be used as evidence in future defenses that you weren't serious about protecting your rights. that's why, e.g., corporations are so pissy about their brand name becoming the standard term for a class of product, and why brand names have thus been replaced by generic terms such as Frisbee/flying disc, Kleenex/tissue, Xerox/photocopy, etc. due to corporate legal demands on media. simply put, if Meisel doesn't go after the Bloop guy, anyone who rips off anything from his portfolio can use the fact that he let the Bloop guy off as evidence they should get off, too.

Genericization is only an issue in Trademark law, not Copyright.

That is fukt. And for 32 grand plus addt'l legal fees, I would probably be willing to kill someone and burn down their entire world around them. Cuz the only way to cleanse bullshit like that is WITH FIRE.

I fail to see how bitting out a cover-photo is any less of a change than the Obama poster that caused a ruckus, but AFAIK, no $30 grand in settlement fees there.

dubkitty wrote:

kaboom wrote:it's a creative tribute album, and part of it is a creative tribute to the album cover. i don't understand the criminality of that, or how anyone could want to take someone to court over it.

part of copyright law is the doctrine that if you don't aggressively defend your copyrights, it can be used as evidence in future defenses that you weren't serious about protecting your rights. that's why, e.g., corporations are so pissy about their brand name becoming the standard term for a class of product, and why brand names have thus been replaced by generic terms such as Frisbee/flying disc, Kleenex/tissue, Xerox/photocopy, etc. due to corporate legal demands on media. simply put, if Meisel doesn't go after the Bloop guy, anyone who rips off anything from his portfolio can use the fact that he let the Bloop guy off as evidence they should get off, too.

You're confusing Copyright with trademark. They are very different things, and genericization doesn't apply at all in this situation.

Edit: beaten by bigchief.

Is the cover art even actually infringing copyright? I think it's pretty clear that it isn't even an edit of the photo used, but rather an entirely new image, that is merely based on the original photo, and could never by anyone be confused with it.

Also, since this production would in no way decrease the profits of, nor directly cost Miles Davis' estate anything, I don't see how it is in some way stealing - especially considering:

"I went out of my way to make sure the entire project was above board, licensing all the cover songs from Miles Davis's publisher and giving the total profits from the Kickstarter fundraiser to the five musicians that participated."

In fact, I believe if anything it would potentially increase the audience and sales of the original album.



Personal economic/legal/whatever thoughts for context:
Stealing from the rich is wrong. The rich deserve every penny they make.
Income tax - especially in it's current form - is an immoral institution. (unrelated, but gives you an idea of my positions on things)
If you sue someone and lose, you should have to pay their legal fees.
People pay way too much attention to laws, and not enough to general (that is to say secular, and logic-based) morality.

the rights for the photo don't have anything to do with Miles' estate; they belong to the photographer, or to the agency to which he assigns or sells those rights.

it appears to be a common belief nowadays that images are somehow exempt from copyright limitations in ways that they legally aren't; i note that Baio's attempts to "make sure the entire project was above board" didn't include clearing the rights to the cover art, though he went to the trouble of clearing the song publishing. similarly, there was a thread on ILF awhile back where someone couldn't understand why YouTube was pulling their videos of original music for copyright violation; i looked at one and quickly saw that it was shot through with flash-cuts of famous, copyrighted news photographs--e.g. photos of the Manson girls--that were identifiable even in 1/2 second blips. whether visual artists like it or not, visual images are subject to copyright laws, and the question of whether an alleged "fair use" is "transformative" or merely "derivative" is by no means as clear-cut as Baio's advocates would like to claim. IMO there's nothing "transformative" about the Baio image; it's the Maisel photo pixelated, which seems more derivative to me than transformative under the criteria discussed in Campbell which among other things require the addition of significant artistic content to the copyrighted material used. running a famous photograph through a Photoshop filter isn't "significant artistic content" in my world, sorry.

Ok I read something wrong then.

Although this kind of makes me more convinced that the case is BS though. Any photographer/artist should be able to see that the image was newly created, not the result of an edit/filter/effect/etc. You can tell this by looking at the shapes, and specifically the tie. Even if it somehow legally infringes, its by technicality only. It isn't really close enough to the original that I would ever call it a copy, even remotely. To pursue the case is kind of just being petty.

Also, you can just look at most of what I wrote before and replace every instance of Miles Davis with the photographer.

jfrey wrote:Is the cover art even actually infringing copyright? I think it's pretty clear that it isn't even an edit of the photo used, but rather an entirely new image, that is merely based on the original photo, and could never by anyone be confused with it.

WENDT v. HOST INTERNATIONAL INC
asked about pricing and licensing but decided it was too expensive. then they made these robots so ugly that they looked nothing like the celebrity characters from cheers. so they thought they were in the clear since they did something different and gave up on look-a-like robots. THEY GOT SUED ANYWAY and lost simply because they asked about a license, thus proving intent. so if in your head, there is a connection to the original art, then you can be guilty of trademark infringement. even if there is no other evidence other than intent. the fact that he stated what it is a tribute to, proves intent regardless of the subject matter. that is a trademark case though while we are mainly discussing a copyright settlement.

dubkitty wrote:IMO there's nothing "transformative" about the Baio image; it's the Maisel photo pixelated, which seems more derivative to me than transformative under the criteria discussed in Campbell which among other things require the addition of significant artistic content to the copyrighted material used. running a famous photograph through a Photoshop filter isn't "significant artistic content" in my world, sorry.

there is a lot of art that has very little work involved, that doesn't mean that it is removed from the context of a real artist making real art. I'm not easily fooled into believing that [artist name] is the most amazing artist just because of some cheap provocative marketing ploy. none the less, these types of visual artists who are more about context, commentary and reputation than technical skill will never go away. when discussing such a subjective subject such as art, I think the courts should have no direct control over what is considered art. but they do.

EDIT: I just looked at the two album covers, IT IS NOT A PHOTOSHOP FILTER. it was drawn in pixels by hand.

morange wrote:Copyright is an archaic concept.

i disagree completely.

its an abused concept for sure, but if it is an alteration of the source material to the point where both the replication and originality are intact, and the originality uses a significant amount of artistic input, then its ok.

not sure where pixelation stands on that line, but if i were in the position i'd be ok with it.

yeah, we could have a whole aesthetic discussion as to whether, say, a lot of what Warhol did--e.g. the Monroe multi-prints--was "art" or a simple derivation of the four-color printing process. was it a comment on the process, or just a derivative use? IIRC some of that was also litigated; didn't Campbell's Soup sue? but in that situation there was both obvious alteration and a major change in context; a Soho gallery and a supermarket shelf don't compete with other. some of Baio's problem, i think, is that he repurposed the art as an album cover for the same music, albeit re-interpreted. that makes it harder to show "transformative" use. using a pixellated image of Miles in a mural or painting about the reduction of organic forms to blocks of data would be an easier sell in legal terms.

i'll trust you and stand corrected on the not-a-Photoshop-filter issue; it wasn't clear from the pictures i saw last night.