3 ms·
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 agr
by 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 agoThe 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.