I'm thinking all parties incorrectly assessed each other and the couple, having the clear upper-hand, got a little petty and decided to play beat down the bigot.
So you're saying that there is a real or perceived risk that all available photographers could flip their shingles when gay folks come a knocking? That seems relevant. Hmmm.. I, for one, believe that risk to be mighty close to nonexistent/highly improbable today but I definitely concede the point. I still do not see how *one* individual can be "forced" to tolerate what is abhorrent to the individual. That seems a little like torture. Underground artist in the making.
The hotel should have lost. The hotel is not obligated to pay any attention to their guests beyond keys to a room and basic services. Keys and basic services are not art and are not speech.
There is no difference, really. How can there be? The photographer can choose whether they'd like to take pictures of anything they like. To force that photographer to take pictures of any race that they're not comfortable with is forcing speech from the individual AND attempting to legislate free will.
These are individuals, the picture snappers, there is no Oath of Photography, pictures are art, it is neither a racial nor a moral matter rather it seems an individual liberty matter.
That animator should be taken off the project and preferably without resorting to dismissal which would lean back around to the studio's ethics and responsibilities. The individual can walk, run, suck it up or sue and then find a gig that he doesn't object to.
Your example is one that is between an artist and his employing studio and not really between the artist and the customer.
I think that the correct tact here is that photography is an art (yes, even with your little camera phone rigs and even weddings) and all art is a form of speech. As such the medium, the "voice" of the artist, is of paramount concern to the artist before his customer's voice is ever heard much less considered. If you don't like the art you do not buy it, likewise, if the artist detests the medium he should not make it. Any in between would be at the behest of the artist.
I could think of little that would be less appealing than hiring a photographer to take pictures of something they'd rather not take pictures of and then paying money for the results.
It's almost as if because this is an equal rights issue and that the rights of one party supersedes the rights of the other because homosexuality is involved and the acceptance thereof.
I would think that you can not legislate acceptance that forces an artist to provide art for you. An apartment, insurance or the right to marry, sure, but acceptance? Something tells me that that's not right.
OK, wait, so, there's this couple who wants to marry and there's this photographer (a *person*) who would rather not photograph that event, because reasons, and the couple still wants that person to capitulate and take their pictures because other reasons?
That's incredible.
Couple: Please take our pictures. Photog: I'm afraid I'm not comfortable with that. Couple: Why? Because we're gay? Photog: Pretty much. Couple: We're going to sue you if you don't. Photog: Oh, I didn't know you were *that* kind of gay couple. Yeah, still no.
The last time I looked at the yellow pages finding a photographer was not bereft of options.
Dealing with a single, solitary individual that photographs is extreme "a corporation is a person" thinking (not that the premise alone isn't extreme enough).
They need to get off their proverbial high horse and get back down to planet earth. That's what I think. As a matter regarding the rights of an individual the ACLU doesn't seem to have chosen wisely. i.e. I have the right to not be forced to dry heave while doing what I do for a living and I'm not about to quit, because reason.
Re: Re: Re: Lost web pages "tragic"? Oy, you got some wild notions, minion.
"When you copyright a piece you send a copy to the library of congress."
What? That's not right. That's not right at all.
A) Copyright is granted 'upon creation'. B) Last I checked the Library of Congress is somewhere else and has working hours and a door. C) It's the end of 2013, do we even need the Library of Congress like that? It's not like it's helping anything.
Enlighten me as to how engorging on the fountain of restrictions helps humanity even a little.
I definitely think that this version is a parody. Perhaps they should've titled the page "Beastly Boys" but ... This version is a piece that seems to stand on its own.
Your attempt at bringing a car into this is flawed, fatally. Nobody has taken anything. The song was a template for further creativity, a result that happens to "reverse" the message of the role for girls as well. At best, someone saw your car in the driveway and said "I'm gonna get a car like that but with a totally different color and then I'm gonna sell ice-cream out of it".
I should think that the Beasties don't want to go all the way with this one - and the RIAA definitely doesn't.
The Beasties should settle, and not take one red cent. If they demanded "some profits" they would be the ultimate sell-out and they would've defeated the entire premise and they would become just another sell-out in the crowd. They should let the girls have their parody and both parties should agree to stop there. But that's just me and I don't really care and were it that I would I would download them both without prejudice and were it that I could I would download your car, if it was cool enough.
And I have no doubts that this website has had its legal chain rattled already so I don't think it's like that either. Maybe if someone created Cleantech.com and espoused the moral requirements of content filtering dressed with the look & feel of this web site.. but didn't allow comments then you might be close.
The Goldieblox people did not take and use a Beastie song, they used a Beastie song to create a new song. The Mona Lisa has been photo-shopped and is now a boy smoking a cigar in a tiki bar with palm trees in the background. Both works stand on their own.
Your point brings transformation to mind. Is this Goldieblox song clearly transformative?
Beastie Boys output is transformative, in both lyrics and music, and I make no bones about their use of sampling and influence from prior art but it is clear that their art stands on its own. Can this "version" of Girls do the same?
I think I understand most arguments in this thread, for or against, so I'll be interested in the results.. Actually, I'd be much happier if they just all put their guns down and respect each others position and then let me download the song so I can hear what all the fuss is about.
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re:
I'm thinking all parties incorrectly assessed each other and the couple, having the clear upper-hand, got a little petty and decided to play beat down the bigot.
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re: similar situation in the UK
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re: Re: It is complicated...
These are individuals, the picture snappers, there is no Oath of Photography, pictures are art, it is neither a racial nor a moral matter rather it seems an individual liberty matter.
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your example is one that is between an artist and his employing studio and not really between the artist and the customer.
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
Re: Re: Re:
I could think of little that would be less appealing than hiring a photographer to take pictures of something they'd rather not take pictures of and then paying money for the results.
It's almost as if because this is an equal rights issue and that the rights of one party supersedes the rights of the other because homosexuality is involved and the acceptance thereof.
I would think that you can not legislate acceptance that forces an artist to provide art for you. An apartment, insurance or the right to marry, sure, but acceptance? Something tells me that that's not right.
On the post: Unfortunate: ACLU On The Wrong Side Of A Free Speech Case
What the II..?
That's incredible.
Couple: Please take our pictures.
Photog: I'm afraid I'm not comfortable with that.
Couple: Why? Because we're gay?
Photog: Pretty much.
Couple: We're going to sue you if you don't.
Photog: Oh, I didn't know you were *that* kind of gay couple. Yeah, still no.
The last time I looked at the yellow pages finding a photographer was not bereft of options.
Dealing with a single, solitary individual that photographs is extreme "a corporation is a person" thinking (not that the premise alone isn't extreme enough).
They need to get off their proverbial high horse and get back down to planet earth. That's what I think. As a matter regarding the rights of an individual the ACLU doesn't seem to have chosen wisely. i.e. I have the right to not be forced to dry heave while doing what I do for a living and I'm not about to quit, because reason.
Fuck.
On the post: Copyright Strikes Again: No Online Access To UK Internet Archive
Re: Re: What the.. ?
On the post: Copyright Strikes Again: No Online Access To UK Internet Archive
Re: Re: Re: Lost web pages "tragic"? Oy, you got some wild notions, minion.
What? That's not right. That's not right at all.
A) Copyright is granted 'upon creation'.
B) Last I checked the Library of Congress is somewhere else and has working hours and a door.
C) It's the end of 2013, do we even need the Library of Congress like that? It's not like it's helping anything.
Enlighten me as to how engorging on the fountain of restrictions helps humanity even a little.
On the post: Copyright Strikes Again: No Online Access To UK Internet Archive
What the.. ?
On the post: Canadian Cop Puts On An Impromptu Clinic On How To Deal With Critics And Cameras
Gosh
On the post: Beastie Boys Not Letting Goldieblox Off; Launch Massive Countersuit
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: CEO Of 21st Century Fox Thinks People Aren't Really Asking For A La Carte TV Channels
A La What?
I'll go out on a limb and say bundling any cable tv offering (if they existed) is an idea that has been aged out.
Too nothing, too late.
On the post: Beastie Boys Not Letting Goldieblox Off; Launch Massive Countersuit
Re:
Your attempt at bringing a car into this is flawed, fatally. Nobody has taken anything. The song was a template for further creativity, a result that happens to "reverse" the message of the role for girls as well. At best, someone saw your car in the driveway and said "I'm gonna get a car like that but with a totally different color and then I'm gonna sell ice-cream out of it".
I should think that the Beasties don't want to go all the way with this one - and the RIAA definitely doesn't.
The Beasties should settle, and not take one red cent. If they demanded "some profits" they would be the ultimate sell-out and they would've defeated the entire premise and they would become just another sell-out in the crowd. They should let the girls have their parody and both parties should agree to stop there. But that's just me and I don't really care and were it that I would I would download them both without prejudice and were it that I could I would download your car, if it was cool enough.
And I have no doubts that this website has had its legal chain rattled already so I don't think it's like that either. Maybe if someone created Cleantech.com and espoused the moral requirements of content filtering dressed with the look & feel of this web site.. but didn't allow comments then you might be close.
The Goldieblox people did not take and use a Beastie song, they used a Beastie song to create a new song. The Mona Lisa has been photo-shopped and is now a boy smoking a cigar in a tiki bar with palm trees in the background. Both works stand on their own.
On the post: Beastie Boys Not Letting Goldieblox Off; Launch Massive Countersuit
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You haven't provided any supporting evidence to support your supposition.
On the post: Beastie Boys Not Letting Goldieblox Off; Launch Massive Countersuit
Re: Re: Re:
It's definitely a new sound track. They basically share the melody and the word "girls".
On the post: Beastie Boys Not Letting Goldieblox Off; Launch Massive Countersuit
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BUT, you're still going with the wrong side:
Oddly enough everything but the "sound" is the same which, naturally, makes it all but completely different.
It's definitely parody, IMO and clearly not the Beastie Boys, who would be better served by moving on I think.
On the post: Beastie Boys Not Letting Goldieblox Off; Launch Massive Countersuit
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A little conflicted
On the post: Beastie Boys Not Letting Goldieblox Off; Launch Massive Countersuit
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A little conflicted
Fuck the Beastie Boys!
On the post: Beastie Boys Not Letting Goldieblox Off; Launch Massive Countersuit
Re: Re: Re: Re: A little conflicted
Beastie Boys output is transformative, in both lyrics and music, and I make no bones about their use of sampling and influence from prior art but it is clear that their art stands on its own. Can this "version" of Girls do the same?
I think I understand most arguments in this thread, for or against, so I'll be interested in the results.. Actually, I'd be much happier if they just all put their guns down and respect each others position and then let me download the song so I can hear what all the fuss is about.
Next >>