you don't have the right to use what produces income for me without my permission.
I assume that you mean the moral right and not the legal right. Because I most certainly do have the legal right to use what produces income for you as long as it falls under the category of fair use. I understand your point about the protection of the expression of an idea, but I think that you're exhibiting the very attitude of overentitlement expressed in the post's quotes.
And, if you are using others expressions to enrich yourself without contacting their creators or their representatives, you are truly a non-caring, non-thinking lowlife bastard.
You can call me a lowlife bastard, but I think that you're wrong. And not just from a legal standpoint, but a moral one as well. It is not illegal or wrong to use the expression of another's idea even if you do so in a commercial manner. The "fair" in fair use really does mean fair. If I use a snippet of your copyrighted article (the expression) in my article, then that's OK. If I use a snippet of your song on a web site that includes ads, that's OK. That's fair.
But the general rules in the world of photography is you need a release for almost anything that isn't natural, if you intend to use it for commercial purposes.
You're missing the point. It may very well be that the "general rules" say one thing, but the actual law and, more importantly, the purpose of copyright say something different. For example, it may be a general rule that if you take a picture of a public work of art, you should get the permission of the original artist. But that's not because you're legally required to do so. It's because the original purpose of copyright has been corrupted and extended to ridiculous extremes. It's because, in our current envorinment, it's just easier to give into those who think that they control every aspect of their artwork.
In selling the image as a stock photo, there is great potential that the image is used to promote products or other.
And how is this relevant to the question of whether something is fair use? I think that the issue of political or commercial associations has more to do with the artists perceived rights under copyright rather than the actual law.
The issue of fair use in this case, I believe, has more to do with the transformative nature of the art, rather than its commercial use or potential economic impact on the original artwork. And that's not even mentioning that the art is a public work. I don't know what the original agreement was, but if anyone should have the right to sue for infringement, it's the state who commissioned the art, not the artist.
Tragically, unlike Baio, Hipple appears not to have received permission to relay the details of the settlement. That's really too bad, because this is the kind of information people need to know about.
Settlements like this, where the details are kept hidden from the public, are a big part of the problem. Settlements act similar to case law in that they affect the legal process, but aren't part of the statutes. At least with case law, you actually have to get to a judgement. But settlements, especially ones where some participants aren't allowed to tell their side of the story, are far less subject to the control of the legal process. You end up with one side spouting off blatantly false statements and the other side being gagged. And worse, the history of these settlements just adds weight to future threats of bringing a lawsuit. This is not justice.
In my opinion, if you bring a lawsuit, then you should be forced to release the details of any settlement. Make it illegal to prevent any party in a lawsuit from speaking about the settlement.
This may not stop everyone from intimidating others with the threat of a lawsuit, but at least if they know that they'll have to reveal the sordid details of the settlement, it would make people think twice about actually bringing the case to court.
In this particular case, I think that there would have been a far greater chance that Hipple would have said, "Fine. Go ahead and sue me. And when we eventually settle, I'll be able to explain how the whole situation is a travesty of justice and you won't be able to do a thing about it."
Yes blame the travel document checker. I'm not supporting the TSA, but it could have been an honest mistake by the checker.
I read that as more of a failure of the system, not of a particular "travel document checker". That's the whole point of security theatre: that it's easier to focus on the showy, but less-effectual security measures than to change things that are a bit harder, but would actually increase security.
For example, wouldn't it make sense to push for a standard boarding pass format, perhaps using low-tech approaches like a standard date format or color coding? (If the local sandwich shop can change the color of their flyers every month, why can't the airline industry/TSA/gov't change the color of their boarding passes every day?) Or, oh I don't know, use some more modern technology than a printed piece of paper? Or change the layout of airports so that you check-in and go through security at the same time?
Yes, these measures are expensive, which is precisely the reason that it's easier to put on a show of security rather than actually making things more secure.
Karaganis explains why these firms may have incentive to do this, but notes that this completely goes against the official policy positions of those pushing for laws like PROTECT IP.
Maybe this is supported in the full report, but I don't see this statement being supported by the quote here or the HP article. What Karganis said is that the cause of piracy -- uniform pricing of digital media regardless of local currency exchange rates -- is not acknowledged by the proponants of PIP, not that it "completely goes against" their positions. I think they know full well what the causes are. That's not in dispute. It's how to address piracy that is in dispute.
Now, you could make an argument that you can't solve a problem without understanding its root cause, but I don't see any evidence that PIP supporters don't understand the cause. They know that they're charging $136 for a crappy movie in Mexico. It's just that they see changing their current model as being too risky for them personally.
For whatever reason, Facebook has always had trouble getting people to adopt things like Groups and Lists for their friends
For me, the reason was obvious. Facebook flat out made it difficult to create and use groups. Maybe you figured it out so that it would be useful or maybe they've made it easier since the last time I tried, but I recall trying to set up a group a while back and eventually asking myself why was something that should be so simple, so hard?
I'm not sure where I picked this up, but I seem to recall one of Zuckerberg's driving principles for Facebook was openness. Everybody should share everything. While this may have worked at the beginning to get people onto the site, I think that this "principle" lies at the room of a lot of the privacy concerns people have with Facebook. So, if Google can take the lessons learned from Facebook and address one of its bigness weaknesses (privacy and controlling one's own online persona), then they're on their way to success.
Also, I don't see the transition from Facebook to another service being that big a deal. As long as my close circle of friends have accounts -- i.e. the people who post updates that I actually want to read about rather than ones about someone I knew in highschool eating a ham sandwich today with mustard instead of mayo -- then I could see myself using the service.
kinda like Capone, the knew he was behind all of those crimes, but they couldn't pin anything on him because he always used lackeys that were too afraid of him to point fingers. So the best they were able to do was tax evasion...I guarantee you that if they didn't have tax evasion to go on, they would have cooked something else up.
I think there's a big difference between Al Capone's case and this one. Tax evasion really is illegal. The government didn't "cook up" a conviction of Capone. He evaded taxes and was convicted and punished. It's just that tax evasion was easier to prove than his other criminal activities. But with the Mongols, the government is corrupting trademark law because their goals have nothing to do with consumer protection.
This is outrageous! I mean, how am I supposed to know if the guy I'm buying crystal meth from is an actual Mongols member if I don't see their trademarked logo on his jacket?
Playing devil's advocate means that you support a counterargument in spite of the fact you don't believe in it. My point was that what A Non-Mouse did was not playing devil's advocate because he wasn't arguing against my statement. He was arguing against a different, albeit related, argument. For example, if I say that the sky is blue because of water vapor and you reply that the moon is made of cheese, that's not playing devil's advocate.
However, during a performance, the photographer has very little power over the lighting, etc. He pretty much takes a shot from that viewpoint and that's it. It's really all the photog can do.
I disagree. A photographer may have "little power over the lighting", but s/he has ultimate control over the exposure. The point it that with photography, many (maybe even most) of the variables which go into the final product of a "picture" is out of the photographer's control, but enough are to qualify as art.
Playing Devil's Advocate, I could argue that what Maisel copied was nothing more than "reality".
This argument is more appropriate to "photography isn't art" rather than the argument being made by Mike. Yes, a photographer captures something that exists in reality and could have been seen by someone else. But that doesn't mean that there isn't artistic expression in the selection of lighting, framing, subject matter, etc. I think there is. The question at hand is whether there is the same level (or at least kind) of artistic expression when someone uses something which is already copyrighted as their source.
Not sure if there's time to correct these before this goes to the main page, but I spotted some typos. Please delete this if so.
At one time in my life, I spent more time a dark room than was healthy
S/b "more time in a dark room"?
We recently wrote about Andy Baio's legal fight with Jay Maisel over Baio's use of a pixelated version of Maisel's photograph of Miles Davis that because the iconic album cover for Kind of Blue.
What did Baio (or, really, the guy he hired) do? He copied an image that he saw, but did so in a different and artistic way. What did Maisal do to make his photograph: he copied the scene of Miles Davis in front of him, but did so in a different and artistic way.
I actually agree with your overall point, but I think that the people who don't are going to focus on this key distinction: that what Maisel copied was not copyrighted and what Baio copied was already copyrighted.
Hmmm, maybe I just haven't been following this story closely enough, but I thought the goal of Lulsec was retribution for company's that do stupid shit like install rootkits and that poor security was just the means by which this "higher" goal was achieved. But regardless of what their stated goals may be, based on their targets, I'd say it's obvious that their real goal is retribution.
“It’s very scary if people are going more towards that, to have audiences tell you how to make a show,” she said.
Well, on the face of it, this statement is quite true. If you pander to the lowest common denominator, you end up with something that most people like, but fewer people love. As the Shakespeare story illustrates, there have always been ways for the audience to provide their feedback. But because the Internet (Twitter, blogs, etc.) allows for an unprecedented amount of feedback, the dynamic changes. I don't know much about this production, but I can easily see a group of producers (who are more beholden to investors) making so many changes based on what they read on the Internet that the show ended up suffering.
It could be simply be that no one party is to blame, but that this is just a high profile example of a broader phenomenon, artists trying to pander to their audience rather than trusting their instincts and focusing on the art.
He's always looking for ways to shape the meme to match his notions of copyright and that artists of any sort deserve absolutely no protection of any sort.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that the purpose of copyright and patents is to protect artists. It's not. Protecting the artist is merely the means by which, in our current system, the real goal of copyright and patents -- incentivizing the creation of new works to benefit the public -- is intended to be achieved. The problem is that people of your viewpoint are putting the cart before the horse. You focus on protecting the artist to the exclusion of the benefit to society as a whole.
Would I prefer a system where an artist or inventor can make a good living or even get rich from their work? Sure, but the problem is that this has become the driving force in IP law. Which in turn leads to the countless number of inane and outrageous lawsuits listed out on TD day after day.
On the post: We Need To Let Go Of The Idea That Our Creations Are Utterly Ours
Re:
I assume that you mean the moral right and not the legal right. Because I most certainly do have the legal right to use what produces income for you as long as it falls under the category of fair use. I understand your point about the protection of the expression of an idea, but I think that you're exhibiting the very attitude of overentitlement expressed in the post's quotes.
And, if you are using others expressions to enrich yourself without contacting their creators or their representatives, you are truly a non-caring, non-thinking lowlife bastard.
You can call me a lowlife bastard, but I think that you're wrong. And not just from a legal standpoint, but a moral one as well. It is not illegal or wrong to use the expression of another's idea even if you do so in a commercial manner. The "fair" in fair use really does mean fair. If I use a snippet of your copyrighted article (the expression) in my article, then that's OK. If I use a snippet of your song on a web site that includes ads, that's OK. That's fair.
On the post: Another Fair Use Debacle: Photographer Settles Bogus Copyright Threat From Artist
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're missing the point. It may very well be that the "general rules" say one thing, but the actual law and, more importantly, the purpose of copyright say something different. For example, it may be a general rule that if you take a picture of a public work of art, you should get the permission of the original artist. But that's not because you're legally required to do so. It's because the original purpose of copyright has been corrupted and extended to ridiculous extremes. It's because, in our current envorinment, it's just easier to give into those who think that they control every aspect of their artwork.
On the post: Another Fair Use Debacle: Photographer Settles Bogus Copyright Threat From Artist
Re: Re: Re:
And how is this relevant to the question of whether something is fair use? I think that the issue of political or commercial associations has more to do with the artists perceived rights under copyright rather than the actual law.
The issue of fair use in this case, I believe, has more to do with the transformative nature of the art, rather than its commercial use or potential economic impact on the original artwork. And that's not even mentioning that the art is a public work. I don't know what the original agreement was, but if anyone should have the right to sue for infringement, it's the state who commissioned the art, not the artist.
On the post: Another Fair Use Debacle: Photographer Settles Bogus Copyright Threat From Artist
Re: Re: Flame bait
I was hoping that the title of my comment would convey my sarcasm.
On the post: Another Fair Use Debacle: Photographer Settles Bogus Copyright Threat From Artist
Flame bait
Mike, are you implying that photographers aren't artists?
On the post: Another Fair Use Debacle: Photographer Settles Bogus Copyright Threat From Artist
Travesty
Settlements like this, where the details are kept hidden from the public, are a big part of the problem. Settlements act similar to case law in that they affect the legal process, but aren't part of the statutes. At least with case law, you actually have to get to a judgement. But settlements, especially ones where some participants aren't allowed to tell their side of the story, are far less subject to the control of the legal process. You end up with one side spouting off blatantly false statements and the other side being gagged. And worse, the history of these settlements just adds weight to future threats of bringing a lawsuit. This is not justice.
In my opinion, if you bring a lawsuit, then you should be forced to release the details of any settlement. Make it illegal to prevent any party in a lawsuit from speaking about the settlement.
This may not stop everyone from intimidating others with the threat of a lawsuit, but at least if they know that they'll have to reveal the sordid details of the settlement, it would make people think twice about actually bringing the case to court.
In this particular case, I think that there would have been a far greater chance that Hipple would have said, "Fine. Go ahead and sue me. And when we eventually settle, I'll be able to explain how the whole situation is a travesty of justice and you won't be able to do a thing about it."
On the post: TSA Can Grope Dying Old Ladies; But Can't Catch Guy Boarding Flight Illegally?
Re:
I read that as more of a failure of the system, not of a particular "travel document checker". That's the whole point of security theatre: that it's easier to focus on the showy, but less-effectual security measures than to change things that are a bit harder, but would actually increase security.
For example, wouldn't it make sense to push for a standard boarding pass format, perhaps using low-tech approaches like a standard date format or color coding? (If the local sandwich shop can change the color of their flyers every month, why can't the airline industry/TSA/gov't change the color of their boarding passes every day?) Or, oh I don't know, use some more modern technology than a printed piece of paper? Or change the layout of airports so that you check-in and go through security at the same time?
Yes, these measures are expensive, which is precisely the reason that it's easier to put on a show of security rather than actually making things more secure.
On the post: TSA Can Grope Dying Old Ladies; But Can't Catch Guy Boarding Flight Illegally?
SOP
They were just following standard operating procedures, so it's OK.
On the post: Why Piracy Happens: Because No One In Mexico Thinks Tron Legacy Is Worth Paying $136
The cause is not in dispute
Maybe this is supported in the full report, but I don't see this statement being supported by the quote here or the HP article. What Karganis said is that the cause of piracy -- uniform pricing of digital media regardless of local currency exchange rates -- is not acknowledged by the proponants of PIP, not that it "completely goes against" their positions. I think they know full well what the causes are. That's not in dispute. It's how to address piracy that is in dispute.
Now, you could make an argument that you can't solve a problem without understanding its root cause, but I don't see any evidence that PIP supporters don't understand the cause. They know that they're charging $136 for a crappy movie in Mexico. It's just that they see changing their current model as being too risky for them personally.
On the post: Can Google+ Succeed Merely By Being Not Facebook?
Re: Re: Facebook does offer it
For me, the reason was obvious. Facebook flat out made it difficult to create and use groups. Maybe you figured it out so that it would be useful or maybe they've made it easier since the last time I tried, but I recall trying to set up a group a while back and eventually asking myself why was something that should be so simple, so hard?
I'm not sure where I picked this up, but I seem to recall one of Zuckerberg's driving principles for Facebook was openness. Everybody should share everything. While this may have worked at the beginning to get people onto the site, I think that this "principle" lies at the room of a lot of the privacy concerns people have with Facebook. So, if Google can take the lessons learned from Facebook and address one of its bigness weaknesses (privacy and controlling one's own online persona), then they're on their way to success.
Also, I don't see the transition from Facebook to another service being that big a deal. As long as my close circle of friends have accounts -- i.e. the people who post updates that I actually want to read about rather than ones about someone I knew in highschool eating a ham sandwich today with mustard instead of mayo -- then I could see myself using the service.
On the post: Feds Still Trying To Abuse Trademark Law (?!?) To Stop Motorcycle Gang
Re: Re: Re:
I think there's a big difference between Al Capone's case and this one. Tax evasion really is illegal. The government didn't "cook up" a conviction of Capone. He evaded taxes and was convicted and punished. It's just that tax evasion was easier to prove than his other criminal activities. But with the Mongols, the government is corrupting trademark law because their goals have nothing to do with consumer protection.
On the post: Feds Still Trying To Abuse Trademark Law (?!?) To Stop Motorcycle Gang
Consumer protection
On the post: If Jay Maisel's Photograph Is Original Artwork, Then So Is The Pixelated Cover Of 'Kind Of Bloop'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Primacy
Playing devil's advocate means that you support a counterargument in spite of the fact you don't believe in it. My point was that what A Non-Mouse did was not playing devil's advocate because he wasn't arguing against my statement. He was arguing against a different, albeit related, argument. For example, if I say that the sky is blue because of water vapor and you reply that the moon is made of cheese, that's not playing devil's advocate.
On the post: If Jay Maisel's Photograph Is Original Artwork, Then So Is The Pixelated Cover Of 'Kind Of Bloop'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Primacy
I disagree. A photographer may have "little power over the lighting", but s/he has ultimate control over the exposure. The point it that with photography, many (maybe even most) of the variables which go into the final product of a "picture" is out of the photographer's control, but enough are to qualify as art.
On the post: If Jay Maisel's Photograph Is Original Artwork, Then So Is The Pixelated Cover Of 'Kind Of Bloop'
Re: Re: Primacy
This argument is more appropriate to "photography isn't art" rather than the argument being made by Mike. Yes, a photographer captures something that exists in reality and could have been seen by someone else. But that doesn't mean that there isn't artistic expression in the selection of lighting, framing, subject matter, etc. I think there is. The question at hand is whether there is the same level (or at least kind) of artistic expression when someone uses something which is already copyrighted as their source.
On the post: If Jay Maisel's Photograph Is Original Artwork, Then So Is The Pixelated Cover Of 'Kind Of Bloop'
typos
At one time in my life, I spent more time a dark room than was healthy
S/b "more time in a dark room"?
We recently wrote about Andy Baio's legal fight with Jay Maisel over Baio's use of a pixelated version of Maisel's photograph of Miles Davis that because the iconic album cover for Kind of Blue.
"That because"? Missing or wrong word?
What did Maisal do to make his photograph
"Maisal" s/b "Maisel".
Photography, by it's very nature
"it's" s/b "its".
On the post: If Jay Maisel's Photograph Is Original Artwork, Then So Is The Pixelated Cover Of 'Kind Of Bloop'
Primacy
I actually agree with your overall point, but I think that the people who don't are going to focus on this key distinction: that what Maisel copied was not copyrighted and what Baio copied was already copyrighted.
On the post: Telstra Having Second Thoughts Over Censorship Plan; Fears Reprisals From Hactivists
Hmmm, maybe I just haven't been following this story closely enough, but I thought the goal of Lulsec was retribution for company's that do stupid shit like install rootkits and that poor security was just the means by which this "higher" goal was achieved. But regardless of what their stated goals may be, based on their targets, I'd say it's obvious that their real goal is retribution.
On the post: Julie Taymor Blames Twitter For Bad Reviews Of 'Spiderman: Turn Off The Dark'
Pander
Well, on the face of it, this statement is quite true. If you pander to the lowest common denominator, you end up with something that most people like, but fewer people love. As the Shakespeare story illustrates, there have always been ways for the audience to provide their feedback. But because the Internet (Twitter, blogs, etc.) allows for an unprecedented amount of feedback, the dynamic changes. I don't know much about this production, but I can easily see a group of producers (who are more beholden to investors) making so many changes based on what they read on the Internet that the show ended up suffering.
It could be simply be that no one party is to blame, but that this is just a high profile example of a broader phenomenon, artists trying to pander to their audience rather than trusting their instincts and focusing on the art.
On the post: 'Go The F**k To Sleep' Accused Of Copying Imagery
Re: Re: I never accused any one of stealing...
You seem to be under the misapprehension that the purpose of copyright and patents is to protect artists. It's not. Protecting the artist is merely the means by which, in our current system, the real goal of copyright and patents -- incentivizing the creation of new works to benefit the public -- is intended to be achieved. The problem is that people of your viewpoint are putting the cart before the horse. You focus on protecting the artist to the exclusion of the benefit to society as a whole.
Would I prefer a system where an artist or inventor can make a good living or even get rich from their work? Sure, but the problem is that this has become the driving force in IP law. Which in turn leads to the countless number of inane and outrageous lawsuits listed out on TD day after day.
Next >>