{"id":1097,"date":"2011-06-24T01:19:59","date_gmt":"2011-06-24T05:19:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/aboutrc.com\/?p=1097"},"modified":"2011-06-24T01:29:04","modified_gmt":"2011-06-24T05:29:04","slug":"for-a-friend","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/aboutrc.com\/?p=1097","title":{"rendered":"For a Friend"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>
\n[Full disclosure: The opinions on this blog are my own and represent no one but me…]<\/em><\/p>\n

This afternoon I read a series of articles and Twitter streams about an event that I thought got really out of hand – and made me wonder. \u00a0Photographer Jay Maisel and artist Andy Baio recently were involved in a lawsuit where Jay sued for a violation of copyright for a famous image of Jay Maisel used in a art-album concept called Moment in Bloop. \u00a0In short, this album was a re-interpretation of Miles Davis’ Moment in Blue album in a Chiptune kind of way. \u00a0In this album, Baio used the cover art of the Kind of Blue album and made an 8 bit representation of it to accompany the album. \u00a0Maisel sued, and the affair was settled out of court with Baio paying 32K. \u00a0At the core of the argument was whether this representation of the cover was a Transformative Work, and therefore covered under a Fair Use policy.<\/p>\n

While I have opinions on whether this was fair use or not – they are just that: opinions. \u00a0While I think that theres a lot of merit in discussing these items publicly \u00a0– those really werent the things that immediately came to mind for me. \u00a0I sat and read a Gizmodo article titled “Kind of a Dick Move” that was written by a friend of Baio – talking about the case, the blog posting, and after placing the emphasis on Jay as the owner of a 72 room mansion, it ended with “Oh well. Presumably Maisel has a nice heating system in that 72 room manse to warm his cold little heart. Or maybe he can just burn some money.”<\/p>\n

I guess this was the part that i found disheartening. \u00a0Reading the article and the twitter streams associated with them – it paints a David vs Goliath story where the super rich – with their means and influence crush an artist without a process. \u00a0I guess the problem that I had with it was posited that this was the reason this was such a ‘dick’ move. \u00a0People took to Twitter calling Maisel all sorts of names, and leaving nasty comments on a page that was ultimately taken down.<\/p>\n

Thats where I had questions:<\/p>\n

What does having a building\/mansion\/boat\/means have to do with this situation? <\/strong><\/p>\n

As a Photographer – we focus on registering our Art with a copyright office. \u00a0We do this to be able to protect ourselves in the event that there is a violation of copyright. \u00a0I was in a conversation with someone on the event, getting a message “The wealthy have access to a legal system that others do not”<\/p>\n

When you register your images with a copyright office, one of the things that this registration gives you (prior to infringement) is the ability to collect attorney fees and\u00a0statutory\u00a0damages. \u00a0This would mean that -any- artist \u00a0wealthy or not, could go to the very same lawyers that Maisel did \u00a0for a copyright violation, show that they registered their work, and be afforded the same consideration that everyone else did. \u00a0The lawyers would take the case knowing that if they win, they would get paid by the case. \u00a0Even further, the lawyer that Jay uses base their work on that. \u00a0“No money for you, no money for them”<\/a><\/p>\n

I pay my rent on my place just like everyone else does. \u00a0It would be a hard pill to swallow if we all of a sudden needed to\u00a0gauge\u00a0whether we can prosecute – or be prosecuted based on how easily we make our rent. \u00a0That to me would reek of classism. \u00a0When I work on my images, I register them to make sure that this is protecting me.<\/p>\n

The part that I found really funny was that in the article the “Kind of Bloop” project was credited for Kickstarting a company Baio helped create. \u00a0This company looks like is doing awesome work out there, and according to a Business Insider article – has generated \u00a02 million dollars to date. \u00a0I don’t draw a conclusion to say “2 million dollars.. how much of that does one of the creators of the program get.. is it a lot or a little. \u00a0How big or little is this ‘David’ in this case” \u00a0The fact here is that \u00a0none of this matters. \u00a0It\u00a0doesn’t\u00a0matter what either one of these people have, and it\u00a0doesn’t\u00a0matter if one has more than another. \u00a0That’s not what’s at issue there.<\/p>\n

What does ‘not damaging enough’ have to do with this situation?<\/strong><\/p>\n

I saw another argument that came up that noted that the 8 bit pixel version of the image was Transformative enough – and that it interpreted the picture differently, and not in a damaging way. \u00a0As a Photographer- I know that I try to go out there and make the best image I can with the tools I have. \u00a0I select subjects, focus on the important things, tend to place less focus on things, and manipulate my camera in such a way that I can get the most amount of detail in the places I think there should be. \u00a0The level of detail that is in the image speaks to my crafting that artwork. \u00a0When someone steals a low resolution print from a photographer and prints it – I feel like the\u00a0photographer\u00a0is robbed on two accounts: Their image is stolen first – then all of the intention that they made in the image (the detail) is compromised to a level where its not as ‘good’ as what they intended. \u00a0I can totally appreciate the artwork that went into “Kind of Bloop” but I could -also- totally understand it if someone would say “I dont think that I would like an image that I worked to create be manhandled like that” \u00a0. I could totally understand One man’s 8 bit tribute is another man butchering of a picture. \u00a0The Kind of Bloop album was to show what this music would be like in a Commodore-64 type world. \u00a0What if the drawing on the cover looked like the characters in the Atari 2600 version of “Boxing” – and a subtitle read “A Chiptune Tribute to a Miles Davis Classic” . \u00a0Truth is, who knows.. \u00a0 The fact of the matter here is that I can totally get it if someone argued that they\u00a0didn’t\u00a0want their artwork interpreted in a specific fashion and \u00a0that you could at least – consider that someone would have an objection.<\/p>\n

Is a Photo Art?<\/strong><\/p>\n

When I was reading the article on Gizmodo, Baio noted that he went out of his way to make sure that he was above board, paying licensing fees for the music that was being used. \u00a0Again, in my opinion – I feel like it was -understood- that reinterpreting the music would mean that one would have to ask for permission to do so, and possibly pay a fee to do so. \u00a0This would mean that one could consider that music a piece of art – that would require some credit, attribution, or license. \u00a0So why not the picture? \u00a0Why\u00a0wouldn’t\u00a0an image that was taken, that people who are into this music the world over would recognize, be considered as something that\u00a0you’d\u00a0have to ask for permission on. \u00a0The music could be seen as totally not fair use, but the image totally is?<\/p>\n