Comments on: To Screw Or Be Screwed? That Is The Question.

By: Karan Singh

Karan Singh — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 12:00:00 +0000

Mike M – to follow up on what Carlos Bruno said – in court, the amount asked for is usually really high, so that a settlement is reached.. he asked for 150k.. and they settled at 30k.. thats 20% !!!

And if you read up on Jay, and follow his work, you’ll realize the man is eccentric (no doubt!) but fair and has his own way of doing things.. He’s also extremely encouraging to other people to work things out for themselves. So if he’s decided to pursue this course of action, there must be a good reason behind it. I’d be inclined to give him the benefit of doubt, given that he’s been doing this for 45-50 years!!

By: Matt Green

Matt Green — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 15:49:00 +0000

After viewing this image and reading the post by Baio, I would have to side with Maisel. The artist (Baio) took the time to license all the music. The photography should be treated the same way. As the owner of the original image, Maisel has the right to set a price. This is an example of the perception people have about photography. I don’t understand why anyone would think this is different from stealing music or any other type of art. I would assume someone like Shep Fairey would know better, but that is another example. I hate to see people getting sued, but something has to happen to educate the public and protect photographers.

By: Mike M

Mike M — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 06:34:00 +0000

You’re asking 150k from a small fellow artist who made an 8 bit tribute album… anyone who thinks he’s rolling in money has really deluded themselves.

But I do like the idea that we’re all entitled to hundreds of thousands of dollars when someone changes our art a little bit.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 17:05:00 +0000

When the Shepard Fairey controversy was at it’s peak, I was decidedly on the AP’s side, and maybe that was from the biased position of me personally finding Fairey’s work to be incredibly boring and obvious. (Oh really, the oil industry is corrupt? Thanks Shepard, that incredibly complicated issue has now been made perfectly clear and solvable. PHEW!) Aside from that, I still thought what he did wasn’t above board and showed a total disrespect for anyone trying to make visual content. Friends of mine who were fans of his told me to “relax” and that’s “just what he does.” What a cool defense! I’m totally going to try that the next time I get caught shop lifting.

By: Carlos Bruno

Carlos Bruno — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 16:53:00 +0000

Couldn’t say better than @gmarley:disqus and, just making a add to someone above though was “ridiculous” sue someone for that amount, well … sometimes the value is much, WAY MUCH MORE asked in court to reach the final value agreed. And EVERYTHING run there “based” in past cases … nothing new under the sun … even photography ideas for covers … sad. Artist? donthinkso.

By: muellerworks

muellerworks — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 16:42:00 +0000

@gmarley, I couldn’t agree more. I tried to convey that in my first sentence about permission and license. The only two images from the blog panel that are not copyright infringement would be the bottom two. I also agree with dcreed (below) about how Baio mentioned properly licensing music and how did it not occur to him to have the same consideration for the artwork—copyright exists for a reason. Justice was served, but an expensive lesson. I guess where I am focusing is in this world of information, how did Baio not know he was committing copyright infringement in the first place? He seems very self-righteous in his tone, and therefore I think he is clueless. “Give me the right to say no, and I’m way more likely to say yes.” Well said gmarley! But if I were Maisel and I was presented with Baio’s “8-bit artwork” I would have said NO.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 15:54:00 +0000

I honestly think the thing that would bother me and make me want to take action is simply that I wasn’t asked first. Especially if I’m on the level of Maisel, I have a staff that I pay to handle that kind of thing, they can just shoot me an email saying an artist wants to do this little project, and I’d be comfortable working something out as long as I was aware of what was going on. Give me the right to say no, and I’m way more likely to say yes.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 15:17:00 +0000

What’s ironic is that when you read Baio’s post he makes a point of mentioning he properly licensed the music. He apparently doesn’t consider visual art worthy of the same respect and free to rip off as he pleases. Works like this are clearly derivative, not transformative, as copying an image by simply changing the medium doesn’t transform anything. I say sue their asses til they get the point. Copyright exists for a reason.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 14:49:00 +0000

best answer so far. its just like sampling a piece of music. All involved in the production of the original piece (copy right holders) would receive a percentage of the sales. Which raises the question, should a type of publishing be developed for art/images, if one does not exist already?

By: muellerworks

muellerworks — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 14:29:00 +0000

I agree with Bradley Taylor above. Additionally, if you can identify what the reproduction is, your first thought should be about legality, permission and license. If you cannot identify what the reproduction is, then what is the point? A slippery slope. Simple question: how would you feel if that was YOUR work “being interpreted.” A really harsh outcome for Andy Baio, that I wish wasn’t so. But rather than finger wagging people (as stated in the blog post) into not harassing Jay Maisel, I would instead look at Andy Baio and ask “Duh, what did you think would happen? At your core didn’t it even seem questionable to you?” With all of that said, I feel his pain. If there were a fund entitled “I f-cked up real bad and need some donations to help pay for my infringement penalties” I would donate a couple bucks for sure.