A lot of types of advertising need to die, and a lot of advertising practices, but I'm not sure I can see advertising dying as a whole. At the core, advertising is a simple transaction: money for exposure and thus a shot at attention.
As long as the attention of the public is valuable in some way, to someone, then that someone will be willing to pay for it, and someone else will be willing to sell it.
Suit yourself, but I think the issue is that you're not looking closely enough at all the very meaningful discussion that has been happening right in front of you -- in stead opting to ask "why not just get permission?" over and over again
Your world of permission-based art sounds like a sterile world indeed...
Really? Because I rebuilt someone's 3D model for another program a while back, and I just sent him an email and asked. And he said "no problem."
And if you're lucky, that counts.
If you're not lucky, the situation under which he originally created the model was such that he doesn't own the full rights and can't give you legal permission. If you're not lucky, he sees what you did and changes his mind, and claims that your request and his "no problem" do not constitute a proper licensing agreement, and as such at least some aspects of your use are unauthorized. Or it turns out his model was inspired by someone else's work, perhaps even subconsciously, and when you get successful that person shows up and tries to sue both of you. Or someone involved in your project accidentally and irresponsibly files a DMCA claim against his work, believing he copied you, and then he sues you for copyright fraud. Or someone else makes him an offer to buy his copyright outright in the future, and he contacts you saying he's withdrawing your permission, since nothing in your original agreement specified that it was perpetual.
Or, you get lucky and none of that happens. But not everyone does. Casual permission is nowhere near as absolute as you think.
I'm just saying that it does clear up the ambiguity quite nicely, doesn't it?
It's one way to partially clear up the ambiguity. Not "quite nicely" no -- plenty of people have attempted to reverse their stance on permission, or other interested parties have turned up and tried to claim they have rights too, or a tiny oversight in getting the correct legal permission has sunk an entire work. You can get permission in all good faith and still end up in court. You might win, but just being dragged into court is enough to destroy a lot of artists, which means many can't afford to even put up a fight.
But, frankly, none of that matters. You claim that your only original point about permission was that it clears up the ambiguity, but that's not true. You've been openly mocking people who don't get permission this whole time -- condescendingly claiming that the only reason not to is to be "risky and trendy."
Moreover, whatever point you were trying to make, you have asked the same question several times: "what's wrong with getting permission?"
Well, we've answered. A lot of things are wrong with getting permission.
I agree that it was fair use and that the copyright holder was wrong. I think the copyright holder had a nonfrivolous argument that it was infringement, but I agree with the Second Circuit's determination that it was not. Oops. I didn't support the copyright holder. Did I just blow your (closed) mind?
Translation: "I couldn't figure out a way to disagree with that post, which is why you won't find me throwing a temper tantrum in the comments there. In fact, I avoided it altogether. I only comment when I can start a fight or mock someone."
Is there ever a situation where getting permission is a bad thing? Where you should not ask permission if you intend to exploit the work commercially? I can't think of any.
It is an unnecessary roadblock to an artist's freedom of expression, and thus I say: every situation is one in which getting permission is a bad thing. I believe there is an economic role for copyright in certain types of reuse, but I don't believe permission has any place in the world of art and culture.
Even in this situation, imagine what permission would have done. Prince was out one day, found a copy of this photography book, was inspired, took it home and starting clipping out bits of it to use in highly transformative original works of his own. That's the artistic process.
Should he have had to stop, put his inspiration on hold, look up the photographer's contact information, get in touch, wait for a response, and hope it's "yes"? Should he go ahead and make his work, but be risking a huge amount of his time as a career artist on the possibility that permission will be denied? And why should he do any of that simply because, though his intention is to create a transformative, original piece that is protected by fair use, he is unable to know for sure whether his work will qualify or not because the law is unclear?
None of that is in keeping with the goals of copyright, or the natural means of artistic and cultural proliferation in general.
If you're selling the collage down at the local art gallery? Then yes.
If you're just going to put it up on your bedroom wall and moon over all the topless shots of that werewolf guy and that vampire guy, then that's fair use.
It is a common misconception that fair use cannot be commercial. That is not true. In fact, another portion of this ruling directly addresses that:
This factor must be applied with caution because, as the Supreme Court has recognized, Congress “could not have intended” a rule that commercial uses are presumptively unfair. Campbell, 510 U.S. at 584 Instead, “[t]he more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors, like commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fair use.” Id. at 579. Although there is no question that Prince’s artworks are commercial, we do not place much significance on that fact due to the transformative nature of the work.
Because it's a limitation on freedom and artistic expression -- which means the burden of proof lies on those who want it in place. The question is not what's wrong with limiting speech -- it's what's gained by it? What justifies it?
Well, I agree that it's important for there to be room for human judgement in the legal system -- however, when things reach the point where there's virtually no way to know if you're breaking the law or not, that's a problem. And that's the situation for appropriation artists. Keep in mind that fair use is not something you can proactively establish -- you have to wait until you are sued, and get a lawyer.
That was Zediva, and yeah, they lost the first round in court when the MPAA sued -- the judge issued an injunction. However, it never went to appeal, because Zediva shut down having been thoroughly screwed over already.
Aereo, on the other hand, won both its initial round in Boston and the appeal.
But it's also true that the law on a lot of these questions is so untested that often, yes, extremely similar situations do need to go to court separately. Certainly in this case, the fact that public airwaves are involved brings up some legal issues that weren't part of the Zediva case.
On the post: Solution: The Copy Culture Cryptic Crossword
Re:
On the post: Native Advertising Is Advertising People Want
Re: Should advertising itself should die?
As long as the attention of the public is valuable in some way, to someone, then that someone will be willing to pay for it, and someone else will be willing to sell it.
On the post: Native Advertising Is Advertising People Want
Re: If content is advertising
On the post: Appeals Court Overturns Richard Prince Ruling In Victory For Fair Use & Appropriation Art
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Feature, not bug
Your world of permission-based art sounds like a sterile world indeed...
On the post: Appeals Court Overturns Richard Prince Ruling In Victory For Fair Use & Appropriation Art
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Feature, not bug
Now you're just ignoring the multiple answers that we've offered to that question...
On the post: Appeals Court Overturns Richard Prince Ruling In Victory For Fair Use & Appropriation Art
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Feature, not bug
And if you're lucky, that counts.
If you're not lucky, the situation under which he originally created the model was such that he doesn't own the full rights and can't give you legal permission. If you're not lucky, he sees what you did and changes his mind, and claims that your request and his "no problem" do not constitute a proper licensing agreement, and as such at least some aspects of your use are unauthorized. Or it turns out his model was inspired by someone else's work, perhaps even subconsciously, and when you get successful that person shows up and tries to sue both of you. Or someone involved in your project accidentally and irresponsibly files a DMCA claim against his work, believing he copied you, and then he sues you for copyright fraud. Or someone else makes him an offer to buy his copyright outright in the future, and he contacts you saying he's withdrawing your permission, since nothing in your original agreement specified that it was perpetual.
Or, you get lucky and none of that happens. But not everyone does. Casual permission is nowhere near as absolute as you think.
On the post: Appeals Court Overturns Richard Prince Ruling In Victory For Fair Use & Appropriation Art
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Feature, not bug
It's one way to partially clear up the ambiguity. Not "quite nicely" no -- plenty of people have attempted to reverse their stance on permission, or other interested parties have turned up and tried to claim they have rights too, or a tiny oversight in getting the correct legal permission has sunk an entire work. You can get permission in all good faith and still end up in court. You might win, but just being dragged into court is enough to destroy a lot of artists, which means many can't afford to even put up a fight.
But, frankly, none of that matters. You claim that your only original point about permission was that it clears up the ambiguity, but that's not true. You've been openly mocking people who don't get permission this whole time -- condescendingly claiming that the only reason not to is to be "risky and trendy."
Moreover, whatever point you were trying to make, you have asked the same question several times: "what's wrong with getting permission?"
Well, we've answered. A lot of things are wrong with getting permission.
On the post: CBS Will Sue Aereo In Boston, Preferably In The Alternate Reality Where CBS Is Winning
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Translation: "I couldn't figure out a way to disagree with that post, which is why you won't find me throwing a temper tantrum in the comments there. In fact, I avoided it altogether. I only comment when I can start a fight or mock someone."
On the post: CBS Will Sue Aereo In Boston, Preferably In The Alternate Reality Where CBS Is Winning
Re: Re: Re: I'm confused here
Yes, sorry, I switched the two around there. That or it was an optimistic premonition ;)
On the post: Appeals Court Overturns Richard Prince Ruling In Victory For Fair Use & Appropriation Art
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Feature, not bug
It is an unnecessary roadblock to an artist's freedom of expression, and thus I say: every situation is one in which getting permission is a bad thing. I believe there is an economic role for copyright in certain types of reuse, but I don't believe permission has any place in the world of art and culture.
Even in this situation, imagine what permission would have done. Prince was out one day, found a copy of this photography book, was inspired, took it home and starting clipping out bits of it to use in highly transformative original works of his own. That's the artistic process.
Should he have had to stop, put his inspiration on hold, look up the photographer's contact information, get in touch, wait for a response, and hope it's "yes"? Should he go ahead and make his work, but be risking a huge amount of his time as a career artist on the possibility that permission will be denied? And why should he do any of that simply because, though his intention is to create a transformative, original piece that is protected by fair use, he is unable to know for sure whether his work will qualify or not because the law is unclear?
None of that is in keeping with the goals of copyright, or the natural means of artistic and cultural proliferation in general.
On the post: Appeals Court Overturns Richard Prince Ruling In Victory For Fair Use & Appropriation Art
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Feature, not bug
Well, yeah, you did -- look at the question you were asked, and your answer, again. But in any case I'm glad that wasn't what you intended.
As far as your point that permission works, that's fine, but I don't think putting a permission gateway on artistic output is a good idea.
On the post: Appeals Court Overturns Richard Prince Ruling In Victory For Fair Use & Appropriation Art
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Feature, not bug
Hmm... but what you said before was:
If you're selling the collage down at the local art gallery? Then yes [you have to ask permission]
and:
I'm pretty sure I can't use your photo to make 1000 collages, sell those 1000 collages and keep the money.
Those statements are not true. And the reason they're not true is fair use - whether or not fair use is what you were talking about.
On the post: Appeals Court Overturns Richard Prince Ruling In Victory For Fair Use & Appropriation Art
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Feature, not bug
On the post: Appeals Court Overturns Richard Prince Ruling In Victory For Fair Use & Appropriation Art
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Feature, not bug
If you're just going to put it up on your bedroom wall and moon over all the topless shots of that werewolf guy and that vampire guy, then that's fair use.
It is a common misconception that fair use cannot be commercial. That is not true. In fact, another portion of this ruling directly addresses that:
This factor must be applied with caution because, as the Supreme Court has recognized, Congress “could not have intended” a rule that commercial uses are presumptively unfair. Campbell, 510 U.S. at 584 Instead, “[t]he more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors, like commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fair use.” Id. at 579. Although there is no question that Prince’s artworks are commercial, we do not place much significance on that fact due to the transformative nature of the work.
On the post: Appeals Court Overturns Richard Prince Ruling In Victory For Fair Use & Appropriation Art
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Feature, not bug
If it's a collage that is protected by fair use because it is a transformative work, then yes you can.
On the post: Appeals Court Overturns Richard Prince Ruling In Victory For Fair Use & Appropriation Art
Re: Re: Re: Re: so....
On the post: Appeals Court Overturns Richard Prince Ruling In Victory For Fair Use & Appropriation Art
Re: Re: so....
On the post: Appeals Court Overturns Richard Prince Ruling In Victory For Fair Use & Appropriation Art
Re: Why do artists steal?
On the post: Appeals Court Overturns Richard Prince Ruling In Victory For Fair Use & Appropriation Art
Re: Feature, not bug
On the post: CBS Will Sue Aereo In Boston, Preferably In The Alternate Reality Where CBS Is Winning
Re: I'm confused here
Aereo, on the other hand, won both its initial round in Boston and the appeal.
But it's also true that the law on a lot of these questions is so untested that often, yes, extremely similar situations do need to go to court separately. Certainly in this case, the fact that public airwaves are involved brings up some legal issues that weren't part of the Zediva case.
Next >>