4 ms·

So why didn't he try to license the cover shot? Because he believed (and still believes) that it was fair use: "My lawyers and I firmly believe that the pixel

• natch 15y ago
  Even though I also believe that it is fair use, I would still defer to the artist's judgment on this, because it is their right to decide where the line gets drawn, not mine. That's why it's smart to ask for permission for these kinds of things. Two sides disagree - the tiebreaker should be the fact that one side created the original work on which the clearly recognizably derived work was based. That side gets more weight.
  • timmaah 15y ago
    Huh? Tiebreaker goes to the creator? Then you would have no fair use, parody or any of the sorts.
  • jbellis 15y ago
    > it is their right to decide where the line gets drawn No, the whole point of fair use is that certain uses are protected EVEN IF the artist doesn't like it.
• potatolicious 15y ago
  This seems to me like a lack of appreciation for a particular field. He was making a derivative (but original in its own way) work based on Miles Davis' work. So he sought permission from the right entities to do so. He was also making a derivative (but original in its own way) work based on Meisel's photograph. So he didn't seek permission from the right entities to do so. This reeks of tunnel-vision. As a musician Baio had the appreciation and understanding of the field to know that he's producing a derivative work. As a non-photographer he didn't seem to think the same principle applied to another field of art.