Andy Baio and Richard Prince.

Andy and Richard were both accused for copy right. After reading both stories and looking at the pictures that they used, I think that they would of gave full credit to the owner even if the used photoshop things would of been different. Laws are laws and they must be followed but If I was incharge I would make them pay the owner for each time they made money from the picture. Hey no one says no to money I think the owners would have work something out.

One thought on “Andy Baio and Richard Prince.”

  1. Glad to see that you read both stories about individuals that have been sued for copyright infringement. An interesting difference between the two situations is that Baio did not actually go to court and have a judge/jury decide whether he was infringing on the rights of the photographer. He believed and still believes that he fairly used the Jay Maisel’s photo of Miles Davis as inspiration for the pixel art piece that was created. He even had a lawyer that thought they could prove his ‘fair use.’ But the reality was it would be a greater financial burden to go to court than it would be to simply settle with Maisel. So he paid the photographer and he really, really did not feel good about it.

    Prince on the other hand had the financial resources to defend himself in the courts. I would imagine he had a vested interest in maintaining his right to re-appropriate art and remix it as part of his artistic practice. The art works he makes and sells have made him very wealthy, and I think he wants to be able to maintain his livelihood. He initially lost the case and the court had assigned a remediation by the way of damages and the closing of the show with his artwork. But Prince appealed and the upper court decided in his favor, ruling that Judge Pierre Leval of explained, “[t]he copyright is not an inevitable, divine, or natural right that confers on authors the absolute ownership of their creations. It is designed rather to stimulate activity and progress in the arts for the intellectual enrichment of the public.”

    And in the third case presented, Robin Thicke and Pharrel Williams went to court to defend their fair use remix of a Marvin Gaye composition and lost. One that cost each of them millions of dollars.

    The reason I bring up all of these is the notion that ‘laws are laws’ as a bright black or white, right or wrong is not necessarily the case. We as individuals can have opinions, but the law and it’s enforcement depends on not just the facts of the case, but also the financial means to defend what you believe are your rights.

Leave a Reply to Michael Branson Smith Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *