Related, though not exactly the same. I guess the result is the same, though the intent may not be:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation -Adi On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Parker Higgins <[email protected]>wrote: > That's my biggest issue -- the case didn't "go past" a cease and desist, > because that was never the option. Fair use is not a bright line test, and > we'll never know whether Baio's use was "fair" or not. All we know is Maisel > had an issue with it, and the current legal system basically allows him to > enforce that by threatening ruinous costs even if you win. > > What Maisel did certainly wasn't illegal. Even if the use is a fair one, > he's allowed to sue to find out. But to go directly to that step without > trying to solve it in other ways seems meanspirited and counterproductive. > > Parker > On Jun 27, 2011 9:39 PM, "Andre G Sirois" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sure, but isn't the digital image a cover of the OG photograph? I agree > > that it's a fair use, in fact using the "idea" of the original photo and > > not the expression of the idea in the actual transformation. But, i > > guess, there are measures for doing covers of music in the system, but > > not for other expressions that use the underlying structure. But, I'm > > surprised that this whole case went past a cease and desist.... > > > > On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 12:17:57 -0700, Alex Leavitt wrote: > >> He explained that discrepancy in a tweet, where he said it came down > >> to a mechanical licensing fee. > >> > >> I couldn't find the tweet, but I found a blog post that c/p-ed it: > >> _"Good question! The U.S. Copyright Act of 1909 allows anyone the > >> right to record a cover song, as long as you pay a standard > >> mechanical > >> license, which I happily did; fair use doesn’t apply at all. But > >> for the cover art, it’s an original illustration commenting on a > >> famous photograph, which has a strong fair use defense. The problem, > >> of course, is that fair use is far too ambiguous and actually affords > >> very little legal protection to creators."_ > >> > >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Andre G Sirois wrote: > >> > >>> Just wonder why he licensed the music compositions and nothing for > >>> the art? Because this is a graphic rendering, not necessarily > >>> "sampling" in the traditional sense, how do you go about licensing > >>> the underlying composition for a photograph? Should you have to? > >>> Someone said it would have been ideal to take a picture just like > >>> the original, and then base the digital render upon that instead of > >>> Maisel's pic. But yeah, the chillin' effect on expression here is > >>> waaaay cold. Well, at least Baio made this public.... > >>> > >>> On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:54:36 -0700, Alex Leavitt wrote: > >>> > >>>> I thought the pushback against Baio's interpretation was > >>>> interesting. > >>>> I was keyed into it on Twitter, where someone said they didn't > >>>> see a > >>>> right/wrong in the situation. There was also a large thread on > >>>> Reddit > >>>> where a lot of comments sided with Maisel. > >>>> > >>>> Alex > >>>> > >>>> --- > >>>> Alexander Leavitt > >>>> PhD Student > >>>> USC Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism > >>>> http://alexleavitt.com [4] [5] > >>>> Twitter: @alexleavitt > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Ryan Prior wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Parker Higgins wrote: > >>>>> > In case you missed it, Andy Baio posted a long, smart, and > >>>>> extremely sad > >>>>> > blog post about fair use and his experience making a cool > >>>>> piece > >>>>> of art, > >>>>> > going above and beyond to try to make sure everything was > >>>>> above > >>>>> board, and > >>>>> > then getting screwed on a copyright issue and paying a ,500 > >>>>> > >>>>> (!!!) > >>>>> > settlement. > >>>>> > >>>>> Oh no! I bought Kind of Bloop when it came out and then bought > >>>>> it > >>>>> again as a gift for my brother. So disappointed to hear he was > >>>>> nailed. > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> Discuss mailing list > >>>>> [email protected] [1] [2] > >>>>> http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss [2] [3] > >>>>> FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss [3] [4] > >>>> > >>>> Links: > >>>> ------ > >>>> [1] mailto:[email protected] [5] > >>>> [2] mailto:[email protected] [6] > >>>> [3] http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss [7] > >>>> [4] http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss [8] > >>>> [5] http://alexleavitt.com [9] > >>>> [6] mailto:[email protected] [10] > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Discuss mailing list > >>> [email protected] [11] > >>> http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss [12] > >>> FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss [13] > >> > >> > >> > >> Links: > >> ------ > >> [1] mailto:[email protected] > >> [2] http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >> [3] http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss > >> [4] http://alexleavitt.com > >> [5] mailto:[email protected] > >> [6] mailto:[email protected] > >> [7] http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >> [8] http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss > >> [9] http://alexleavitt.com > >> [10] mailto:[email protected] > >> [11] mailto:[email protected] > >> [12] http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >> [13] http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss > >> [14] mailto:[email protected] > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Discuss mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss > >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
