Prince & Baio

kind_of_bloop_comparison-20100701-172352

“The fact that I settled is not an admission of guilt. My lawyers and I firmly believe that the pixel art is “fair use” and Maisel and his counsel firmly disagree. I settled for one reason: this was the least expensive option available.” –Andy Baio

I agree with Baio. He used the cover photo and just made it a pixel art piece. He did not take the real cover art and kept it the same and said it was his. He used a piece and tweaked it; making it a new piece of art.

tumblr_mltpf83qMq1qzaos7o1_1280

“I’m not going to explain why there’re Rastas and naked women in the paintings, except to say . . . formality . . . and, one thing leads to another. You figure it out. For me art is about continuation, autobiography (the past), what’s right next to you (the present), and the skills to interpret feelings and sensations.” – Richard Prince

In this quote, Prince is explaining why he used the piece. He is relating it to something that is close to him. If you take somebody else’s work and relate it to your life, that is fine. A piece of art can mean different things to each person. I feel if you take someone else’s work and use it for your own, you should give credit to that source.

Fair use is a good law. It protects the people who use copyrighted work for a good cause. As long as you give credit to your source, you should not be sued by anyone.

RUN! RUN CREATIVITY!

richard-project

I created this image by saving the original gif to the computer and then uploading it to photoshop and then adding this text into one of the layers!  This gif I created was made in regards to what’s happening to creativity because of the copyright laws and how you have to be very careful how or what you use these days!

Is ‘Fair Use’ Fair

The article Kind of Screwed claims, “There are a lot of myths and misconceptions about “fair use” on the Internet.” The article Appeal Finds Fair Use In Richard Prince’s “Canal Zone” Series states, “Still, the appeal leaves it to the lower court to decide just how much an artist needsRead More…

The article Kind of Screwed claims, “There are a lot of myths and misconceptions about “fair use” on the Internet.”

The article Appeal Finds Fair Use In Richard Prince’s “Canal Zone” Series states, “Still, the appeal leaves it to the lower court to decide just how much an artist needs to affect an image in order to change it.”

According to both articles, they state the same thing only in dissimilar words. I believe the new law to ‘fair use’ is indifferent to web users. Both users were sued for similar motives. I chose these two quotes because I agree. In my previous blog post I stated, “Fair use is the act of copying but in the use of comments, critique, or parody of a copyright.” It is only fair to acknowledge the creator of an image, video, music production and many other artistic works. There is no telling what that person as a group or individual went through to get where they are now. Let’s say for example, your friend asked you to create a mind-blowing canvas for her 21st birthday party. This image is going to be epic.Why!? Because it will be original. Your very own design on paper. Would it not be fair if you didn’t receive credit or recognition for your exertion? Or as you all may remember the good old days when schools would organize a gathering just to celebrate you. All of your family members, friends, teachers, counselors, school principle and many others who recognizes you as unique gather for a special ceremony performed for you. Because it was worth your talent, your hard-work and your idea to be known to all. Now you’re probably thinking about the way it made you feel.

The first article describing and illustrating to the readers of Andy Baio’s re-creation left me jaw dropping. I am an emergent photographer and with all due respect, there are some images that is worth re-creating. It’s not the idea that is being changed. It is the visual of an idea. And I believe this is what Baio was expressing in his photos. I actually thought it was pretty cool. Personally, it must have been time consuming to put together a pixel version of an image. But it was worth the time.

In both cases, the usage of art ended as a criminal judgment. Considering the law, these men were freely expressing their creativity. The first quote is fairly stating that users are easily misled by the laws of fair use. I believe this is true because, you cannot just take the work of someone other than yourself and find no suit to fit their craft. A subject we are all familiar with is plagiarism. Plagiarism is merely the act of taking ones work, claiming it is originally theirs. However, plagiarism is not considered plagiarism unless it is not recognized by the author. A piece is not plagiarized or accepted if not quoted. Get the point? It is the same construction or concept in copyright and fair use.

Each of us has a talent and a creative mind, and I believe there is so much more to our minds than we comprehend. For instance, in the second article about Richard Prince it seems there has to be a limited degree before an image is considered modified. Whether or not he knew his work, I thought he attempted to be ridiculous. He didn’t just change the image but he changed the saturation of it. I do not think this image was thoughtfully put together as the ones by Baio. It was just cropped, erased, pasted and drawn on.

I understand the points made to both the artist and re-creative artist.  Nevertheless, my conviction toward this is unfairness. After reading and understanding both articles, I have come to a conclusion that the law of fair use is not working. People will always find a way to express their creativity whether they are given credit to or not. What is fair and what is denoted will only suffice in the doctrines of fair use. And if copyright is meant to protect an original piece, I would not alternate the laws of fair use.

These laws are Unfair laws!

In Andy Baio’s case there are several quotes that I agree with: “The act of borrowing ideas is integral to the creative process. There are games that came before Infiniminer, and there are games that will come after Minecraft. That’s how it works.” – Zach Barth. “There’s nothing weird or unusual about this. This is how all…

Read more

In Andy Baio’s case there are several quotes that I agree with:

“The act of borrowing ideas is integral to the creative process. There are games that came before Infiniminer, and there are games that will come after Minecraft. That’s how it works.” – Zach Barth.

“There’s nothing weird or unusual about this. This is how all art and culture is made, by taking the works that we love and building upon the ideas of those people that we admire. Nobody is immune here.”

I completely and totally agree with both of these quotes simply because they speak the truth. The things that people create and the ideas that they come up with are due to different inspirations. Which can or do come from other people’s work and ideas, that were likely inspired by other works and ideas and so on. It’s how things work in the world. We learn about new ideas and creations every day, from social media or television, which inspires us to be creative and imaginative enough to improve upon all of these different ideas or creations. I don’t think that we should be punished by the copyright laws because we’re just trying to share our ideas or creations with the world and I also think that this is a dangerous game that’s being played since not everyone in the world knows or understand the fair use laws.

From the two different Richard Prince articles or writings I chose a couple of quotes that I thought were important and I wanted to comment on:

“The Supreme Court only defines fair use as needing to “alter the original with ‘new expression, meaning, or message.’” Still, the appeal leaves it to the lower court to decide just how much an artist needs to affect an image in order to change it.”

I agree with this quote because if you’re not changing the meaning of or the way the meaning is expressed in a work of art or an idea that’s basically copying some one else’s work and calling it you’re and that’s plagiarism because you’re most likely not giving them any credit for the work. Which I don’t think is right to do especially if you’re profiting from the use of these ideas or art, and you’re not sharing it with the original creators. Even though I agree with this I don’t think that it should be up to who ever the judge is, to decide how much the original should be altered or affected in order for it to be changed because it’s that not entirely fair since everyone has different opinions. Which is what I think Prince is indicating in his writing when he says  “And, when it comes down to it, that’s a question of whether, and for whom, these are effective works of art.” because like I said before what looks and different to me might not seem so different to someone. Like when they say “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” which is completely true.

I definitely don’t think that the copyright laws or fair use laws are working because instead of just protecting people’s arts and ideas all it’s doing is hurting and prosecuting people for their accidental misuse of a specific work of heart or and idea because they want to be creative. If I had the power to change anything  in the copyright laws I would make it harder for someone to be sued or maybe make it more detailed definition of what fair use is and what it means to infringe upon the fair use laws. I would also make some kind of clause that protects people who Accidentally misuse things, but they have to prove that they meant no harm in their use of this specific work or idea.

Is ‘Fair Use’ Fair?

The article Kind of Screwed claims, “There are a lot of myths and misconceptions about “fair use” on the Internet.”

The article Appeal Finds Fair Use In Richard Prince’s “Canal Zone” Series states, “Still, the appeal leaves it to the lower court to decide just how much an artist needs to affect an image in order to change it.”

According to both articles, they state the same thing only in dissimilar words. I believe the new law to ‘fair use’ is indifferent to web users. Both users were sued for similar motives. I chose these two quotes because I agree. In my previous blog post I stated, “Fair use is the act of copying but in the use of comments, critique, or parody of a copyright.” It is only fair to acknowledge the creator of an image, video, music production and many other artistic works. There is no telling what that person as a group or individual went through to get where they are now. Let’s say for example, your friend asked you to create a mind-blowing canvas for her 21st birthday party. This image is going to be epic.Why!? Because it will be original. Your very own design on paper. Would it not be fair if you didn’t receive credit or recognition for your exertion? Or as you all may remember the good old days when schools would organize a gathering just to celebrate you. All of your family members, friends, teachers, counselors, school principle and many others who recognizes you as unique gather for a special ceremony performed for you. Because it was worth your talent, your hard-work and your idea to be known to all. Now you’re probably thinking about the way it made you feel.

The first article describing and illustrating to the readers of Andy Baio’s re-creation left me jaw dropping. I am an emergent photographer and with all due respect, there are some images that is worth re-creating. It’s not the idea that is being changed. It is the visual of an idea. And I believe this is what Baio was expressing in his photos. I actually thought it was pretty cool. Personally, it must have been time consuming to put together a pixel version of an image. But it was worth the time.

In both cases, the usage of art ended as a criminal judgment. Considering the law, these men were freely expressing their creativity. The first quote is fairly stating that users are easily misled by the laws of fair use. I believe this is true because, you cannot just take the work of someone other than yourself and find no suit to fit their craft. A subject we are all familiar with is plagiarism. Plagiarism is merely the act of taking ones work, claiming it is originally theirs. However, plagiarism is not considered plagiarism unless it is not recognized by the author. A piece is not plagiarized or accepted if not quoted. Get the point? It is the same construction or concept in copyright and fair use.

Each of us has a talent and a creative mind, and I believe there is so much more to our minds than we comprehend. For instance, in the second article about Richard Prince it seems there has to be a limited degree before an image is considered modified. Whether or not he knew his work, I thought he attempted to be ridiculous. He didn’t just change the image but he changed the saturation of it. I do not think this image was thoughtfully put together as the ones by Baio. It was just cropped, erased, pasted and drawn on.

I understand the points made to both the artist and re-creative artist.  Nevertheless, my conviction toward this is unfairness. After reading and understanding both articles, I have come to a conclusion that the law of fair use is not working. People will always find a way to express their creativity whether they are given credit to or not. What is fair and what is denoted will only suffice in the doctrines of fair use. And if copyright is meant to protect an original piece, I would not alternate the laws of fair use.