money seems the issue. and a call for respect. regardless of how much a piece is altered it's existence is impossible without the original.
to profit off the back of another artist is disgusting. fight for rights, but forget not morals. and either way no law will "stop" a real artist from creating whatever she/he wants. brian On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:55 PM, dave miller <dave.miller...@gmail.com>wrote: > "But as artists what should concern us is that it is a decision > regarding art that significantly reduces what it is possible to do in > art." > > I totally agree Rob, this is important - copyright law should not stop > artists from being free to transform source material into something > original and new. > > dave > > On 1 April 2011 18:31, Rob Myers <r...@robmyers.org> wrote: > > On 01/04/11 17:29, Catherine Daly wrote: > >> It is actually pretty consistent with recent decisions in music and > >> literature re: copyright. > > > > It may or may not be consistent with recent bad decisions in literature > > and music that have misguidedly reduced the scope of free expression in > > the name of enforcing commercial interests. > > > > But as artists what should concern us is that it is a decision regarding > > art that significantly reduces what it is possible to do in art. > > > >> Plus, he's appropriated 40 entire images and superimposed on them. He > >> hasn't altered the base image of the one picture I saw. > > > > Except by collaging it and painting on or around it to produce a > > noticeably new combined image. > > > > Reports of the case have been very careful to show only the most similar > > (parts of) images. And yet I doubt anyone would lose money if asked to > > bet on which was the original and which was the adaptation even for > those. > > > >> 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. > > > > Well, no, as literature and music cases show. You don't have to be > > making more money than the rightsholder for their loss of revenue or > > your profit motive to be a factor in the four step test. > > > >> But, is this fair use because it is parody? > > > > No. It is fair use because it is transformative. It changes the > > appearance and tone of the source material into something original and > new. > > > > Which part of "destroy the art" are people not getting? > > > > - Rob. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NetBehaviour mailing list > > NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > -- instantconductors.com glimpsecontrol.com
_______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
