If we're to quote some people from "the other side", why go for whiney arty (sic!) assholes, why not go with something a bit more mainstream?
http://kottke.org/11/06/andy-baio-wa...-kind-of-bloop
Gizmodo
Techdirt
More Techdirt
Thomas Hawk
More Thomas Hawk
And here's from a lawyer
(I don't know him, never heard of him, but he popped out in Google. Take it for what it's worth. I'm just listing different takes I found with a 2-minute search.)
I hate to say I told you so, but......It was inevitable. Jay won $32,000 and a reputation among young artists as a "sue-happy dick". They really made my point about the communistic nature of intellectual property, and the futility of trying to keep it private. Instead of having an homage to his work on a non-profit music project, he has a monument to his greed on the street where he lives. Expect more of the same.Originally Posted by Frank Petronio
ahhh, and the glue makes our fingers so dirty - better to pay someone
for getting our graffiti art installed
A person by virtue of his hard work reaches the top of his profession along with fame and fortune. Someone comes by and takes an iconic image created by this person, alters it without permission and publishes it. This person is upset, calls the lawyers and a process begins and ends with this person with some money. And now according to the sages of Largeformat this person is a greedy bastard.
Suppose it was a large soulless corporation and not that artsy dude? And this evil corporation puts an altered version of this iconic image on an advertisement on. So which side would you take now?
I hear that people really don't appreciate intellectual property until they have something worth protecting themselves. I guess that is true.
Kottke says he's disgusted that Maisel sued a "fellow creative artist".
Kind of Bloop wasn't creative...taking Miles Davis tunes and recreating them, note for note, solos and all, with an 8-bit synth, and then using the original cover art (with an 8-bit look). Maybe interesting and a novelty to some, but not creative...
Kind of Blue is a classic jazz masterpiece. Jazz is arguably the apex of musical creativity. Improvisation is the act of responding to a set of chord changes and song forms and interacting with input from other musicians, in that exact moment. That is pure sublime creativity...not transcribing what others did and playing it back with a Pac Man cum Mario Bros cum Commodore 64 sound board.
That's my artist's view...
The business view? If he paid for the rights to the music, why didn't he pay for the image? If he's a good businessman, it was a dumb oversight. If it was a mistake, he's not a good businessman. If it was neither, he was trying to get away with something or create a test case for his ideas of intellectual property.
...and the street posters, and the hate mail, blogs etc...
32k for all this? Not worth it under my little whiney arty asshole point of view. More so if I was Miles freakin' Davis photographer.
At $5 the album (clearing rights to each track and paying the musicians)... definitely not a good business man.The business view? If he paid for the rights to the music, why didn't he pay for the image? If he's a good businessman, it was a dumb oversight. If it was a mistake, he's not a good businessman. If it was neither, he was trying to get away with something or create a test case for his ideas of intellectual property.
Internet mob rule at its finest. The "digital crowd" sure are sticking it to that 80 year old artist.
Most are of course clueless about what they are fighting for or against. Several of the articles/blog posters believe "Kind of Bloop" was either charity or non-profit, which reading from Andy's blog waxy.org, it clearly was not.
Everyone reads one side of the story, told by the self proclaimed victim. "Andy was legally in the right and his usage would have been covered under fair use in court, because that is what Andy said". That is apparently enough to harass Maisel both privately and and in public.
If I ever saw an irony, this is it, especially coming from a photographer and a musician (in random order)! Could you possibly not be aware of the history and the way jazz itself was viewed in the first few decades?
And seeing an artist trying to define creativity in an attempt to deny it to someone else... it's just rich.
Except that he didn't even set the entire thing as a business, he basically set it as a non-profit tribute, in action if not words. Venues he set up as businesses seem to be doing just fine.
I think most everybody serious out there agrees that it was just a mistake. Likely a dumb one. Whoever never made one of those is welcome to cast the first stone and all that.
None of this, of course, applies to this thread, right?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks