Fair use decision: remixing is legal even when there is no intent to comment or parody original work

Discuss

31 Responses to “Fair use decision: remixing is legal even when there is no intent to comment or parody original work”

  1. gtronsistem says:

    may I draw your attention to ‘The Infringement: A Comedy in One (dmc)Act’, on vimeo, which in 2002 sampled from an online copy of an as-yet-unreleased hollywood film, used the sample in the story line, and went online the same day as the film sampled from,  Blade 2, came out in cinemas… fair use before it was deemed fair.
    (with a cameo from recently released Wesley Snipes, come on gang, let’s re-start that career!)

  2. KvH says:

    Seems like this contradicts the finding of the Obama Hope poster. Or did that not go to court?

    • lafave says:

       It was settled out of court at the judge’s urging. Although, the judge did say that if the claim was litigated, AP would win. So yes, this does contradict that. Welcome to the legal system.

  3. Bucket says:

    On second reading: Oh, not that Prince.

  4. Timothy Krause says:

    Jay Maisel’s head just asploded.

  5. Davevonnatick says:

    In order for it to be fair use, does the artist have to suck at Photoshop?

  6. Jorpho says:

    sold them for large sums

    The mind, it boggles.

  7. shawndoc says:

    Didn’t realize this was a new thing.  Roy Lichtenstein’s entire career is based on nothing more transformative than enlarging the original work and changing the medium.

  8. austinhamman says:

    cispa,snoopers, and a fair use ruling man it’s like christmas.

  9. Can’t say I’m happy about this.

  10. technogeekagain says:

    Hate to say it, but this seems to be a serious overcorrection. There *is* such a thing as a “derivative work”, and this appears to be a classic example of one.

    I have no objection to saying the derivative artist can produce and display his works. When it comes to selling them or publishing them, however, I think he owes a substantial share of his profitsto the creator of the work he derived from, if it’s still under copyright.

    If you don’t like that, base your work on free sources.

    • whiznat says:

      I agree. I’m all for fair use, but this seems to be creating a derivative work and then reaping huge profits from it. Isn’t that what the copyright law is designed to prevent? If he had used a picture of Mickey Mouse, I’m pretty sure he would be doing time in a hard labor camp by now.

  11. Frank Xavior says:

    can I just add 2 things to the 2nd pictures and sell it as a 3rd piece of art ?
    sweet ?

  12. Tim H says:

    I think there’s fair use and then there’s being a dick.  When Prince sells his painting for ten million bucks he should probably consider flipping some of it back to the original image maker.  Appropriation becomes something else when the appropriator is more famous than the original image creator.  But I guess that’s specifically what this case was about…

  13. Philboyd Studge says:

    I’ll take my ten million dollars in small bills, thanks!

    • timquinn says:

      That would be funny if Richard Prince didn’t actually get big sums for his work. Which he does. The art world is indeed stupid, buy not in the way you are suggesting.

  14. timquinn says:

    Why is no one here asking what the five works that did not clear the hurdle have in common? This would seem to be the nut of the question.

  15. I wonder how we’ll all feel if large corporations use this decision to openly steal artists’ work and make millions off it… and the artists have no legal recourse whatsoever. The stealing happens now (e.g. Urban Outfitters), but at least there has been some remedy at law available, thus far.

Leave a Reply