3 ms·

So If you make a lot of money On Uber with your Tesla, they “deserve” a piece of that too? A deal is a deal, he sold the art up front without any royalty, that

So If you make a lot of money On Uber with your Tesla, they “deserve” a piece of that too? A deal is a deal, he sold the art up front without any royalty, that is in him and he was in no way cheated, had he done the same deal with 20 other covers of bands that disn’t make it big he would not be complaining.

toyg 8y ago
The difference is that you cannot sell litographical copies of a Tesla with your autograph, as Ian Anderson is doing with that image now. The "copy" part of copyright exists precisely because these works are not simple manufactured goods, they can be easily copied.
- pvaldes 8y ago
  Image based in the photos taken previously from the wife of Ian Anderson, it seems. What the artist could have done is paint as many new versions of the image as he wants and sell them.
- talltimtom 8y ago
  He bought the art for the exact reason it was used. Eg copying the art on covers. Like buying a Tesla for driving and Selling a service with that driving. I agree duly that if he has sold them just one image for one cover of one LP he would have a moral claim to having been cheated. However if that was the case his pricing would be an insane ripoff. And obviously that is not what transpired.
  - toyg 8y ago
    The original contract was for three paintings for album artwork, which he delivered and was paid for - I don't think there is any issue with that. The album could be reprinted billions of time and he wouldn't have a case. The problem he has is with all the collateral reproductions: t-shirts, litographies, and so on. You cannot do that with a manufactured good: if you buy a Tesla, you cannot magically reproduce it identical out of thin air and then sell it bundled with a truck. So please let's stop with the silly imagery that simply does not suit a copyright debate.

3 ms·

So If you make a lot of money On Uber with your Tesla, they “deserve” a piece of that too? A deal is a deal, he sold the art up front without any royalty, that

by talltimtom 8y ago

toyg 8y ago
The difference is that you cannot sell litographical copies of a Tesla with your autograph, as Ian Anderson is doing with that image now. The "copy" part of copyright exists precisely because these works are not simple manufactured goods, they can be easily copied.
- pvaldes 8y ago
  Image based in the photos taken previously from the wife of Ian Anderson, it seems. What the artist could have done is paint as many new versions of the image as he wants and sell them.
- talltimtom 8y ago
  He bought the art for the exact reason it was used. Eg copying the art on covers. Like buying a Tesla for driving and Selling a service with that driving. I agree duly that if he has sold them just one image for one cover of one LP he would have a moral claim to having been cheated. However if that was the case his pricing would be an insane ripoff. And obviously that is not what transpired.
  - toyg 8y ago
    The original contract was for three paintings for album artwork, which he delivered and was paid for - I don't think there is any issue with that. The album could be reprinted billions of time and he wouldn't have a case. The problem he has is with all the collateral reproductions: t-shirts, litographies, and so on. You cannot do that with a manufactured good: if you buy a Tesla, you cannot magically reproduce it identical out of thin air and then sell it bundled with a truck. So please let's stop with the silly imagery that simply does not suit a copyright debate.