The Warholian Dichotomy To Intellectual Property
from the does-that-make-sense? dept
Larry Lessig has an article in the latest issue of Wired Magazine where he discusses how amazed he is that the foundation established following Andy Warhol's death has a semi-enlightened policy towards people using Warhol's work. How "enlightened?" Basically, if you're an artist or a "scholar" they don't bug you very much. For commercial users, however, they are extremely strict. This is enlightened? Wasn't that exactly part of what fair use was supposed to protect in the first place? It's a pretty sad statement when such a policy is considered so surprising that it's worth writing about.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
The corporations would try to make money by using images of those artists and their work. Look at the shameless campaign that Apple did using Einstein and Warhol.
Individuals wouldn't do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
Maybe you mean public-domain? Which Warhol's work isn't considered part of yet. A lot of Disney's is though. Well it isn't but should be.
I think the author of the article was just expressing what a "breath of fresh air" it is to see permission being granted free of censorship in this litigious age of content and intellectual property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair Use
Mike seems to be pointing out how sad it is that the warhol foundation's stance on use of his work is seen as enlightened. The stance they take is exactly what fair use was before the corporate financed changes to copyright laws. Anyone could use copyrighted material for noncommercial purposes.
I agree it is a nice thing to see fair use from the warhol foundation since they don't have to grant it. However, it's pretty sad copyright holders have the power to kill ANY use of their material, commercial or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fair Use
[ link to this | view in chronology ]