It is actually pretty consistent with recent decisions in music and literature re: copyright.
Plus, he's appropriated 40 entire images and superimposed on them. He hasn't altered the base image of the one picture I saw. Here's something from a lawyer blog: To evaluate fair use of copyrighted material, the courts consider four factors set out in 17 U.S.C. 107<http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html> : 1. the purpose and character of the use 2. the nature of the copyrighted work 3. the amount and substantiality of copying, and 4. the market effect. For most courts, the most significant factor in this analysis is the fourth factor–effect on the market. It seems part of his intent was to reduce the marketability of the original images (not of the small pieces of other images). But his greater profit than the maker of the base images is very much on point. But, is this fair use because it is parody? All best, Catherine On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Rob Myers <[email protected]> wrote: > On 01/04/11 16:53, Catherine Daly wrote: > > I guess I would be more sympathetic if he didn't do a line for Louis > > Vuitton based on a fake book project. Is he now going to do a line of > > guitars? Or cameras? > >
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
