4 ms·

There's no "mutilation" going on here at all. The remix has no effect on the original work. This concept of the "moral right of the artist" is the kind of incr

There's no "mutilation" going on here at all. The remix has no effect on the original work. This concept of the "moral right of the artist" is the kind of incredibly vague legalese that's at the heart of the problem here, really. Nobody's arguing that artists shouldn't get compensated for their work (and it's disingenuous for you to assume that). The real problem is that the laws pertaining to this are so vague that they basically enable the person with the most expensive lawyers to bully anybody and win. If you're in favor of an intellectual-property plutocracy, then congratulations, because that seems to be what we've got. The secondary problem is both legal and cultural: remixing a work is not yet perceived by many people to be "work". But it is, without question. Doesn't the remix artist deserve to be compensated for their work? Someday you'll find yourself in a similar situation, if not through malice then by accident, and you'll desperately wish that rules were clearer.

gallerytungsten 15y ago
re: "This concept of the "moral right of the artist" is the kind of incredibly vague legalese..." No, it's not "incredibly vague." Rather, it's pretty clear: What constitutes infringement of moral rights? VARA grants two rights to authors of visual works: the right of attribution, and the right of integrity. The right of attribution allows an author to prevent misattribution of a work, and to require that the authorship of the work not be disclosed (i.e. remain anonymous). The right of integrity bars intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of a work if that distortion is likely to harm the author's reputation, and prevents the destruction of any work of recognized stature. Therefore, if I paint moustaches on a painting by a famous painter such as Roy Lichtenstein or Frank Stella, I will have violated the artist's moral rights under VARA. If I paint moustaches on an Andy Warhol painting on the other hand, I will not have violated Warhol's VARA rights, because VARA protection ends with the death of the author. Source: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property/library/moralprimer.html http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property/library/moralprimer.ht... You may say that "pixelizing" the photo caused no harm; the photographer obviously had a different opinion; to wit, that his "right of integrity" was harmed. While reasonable people can have varying opinions on the level of harm, if any, this principle, as described above, is not vague.
- jeffreymcmanus 15y ago
  You're under the mistaken impression that the original work was used to create the new album cover. That's not the case; the Kind of Bloop cover was a completely new work that happened to look like the original. If it's possible for anyone to file a lawsuit because a given work looks similar to another work, then jeebus help us all.
  - gallerytungsten 15y ago
    Apparently you're no longer confused regarding the "moral right of the artist" being vague. Regarding your claim that the original work wasn't used, I think this quote from the article is pretty clear: "Before the project launched, I knew exactly what I wanted for the cover — a pixel art recreation of the original album cover..." This wasn't a case of happenstance, as you suggest.
- decode 15y ago
  It also seems clear that VARA doesn't apply to the photograph in question. From your link: "Under VARA, moral rights automatically vest in the author of a "work of visual art." For the purposes of VARA, visual art includes paintings, drawings, prints, sculptures, and photographs, existing in a single copy or a limited edition of 200 signed and numbered copies or fewer. In order to be protected, a photograph must have been taken for exhibition purposes only." In addition, the Fair Use doctrine in the US makes things not as clear-cut as you make them out to be. Even if the creator doesn't like it, it's sometimes the case that she doesn't get to prevent her work from appearing in certain kinds of criticism, even if it involves distortion or modification of the work.

gallerytungsten 15y ago

re: "This concept of the "moral right of the artist" is the kind of incredibly vague legalese..." No, it's not "incredibly vague." Rather, it's pretty clear: What constitutes infringement of moral rights? VARA grants two rights to authors of visual works: the right of attribution, and the right of integrity. The right of attribution allows an author to prevent misattribution of a work, and to require that the authorship of the work not be disclosed (i.e. remain anonymous). The right of integrity bars intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of a work if that distortion is likely to harm the author's reputation, and prevents the destruction of any work of recognized stature. Therefore, if I paint moustaches on a painting by a famous painter such as Roy Lichtenstein or Frank Stella, I will have violated the artist's moral rights under VARA. If I paint moustaches on an Andy Warhol painting on the other hand, I will not have violated Warhol's VARA rights, because VARA protection ends with the death of the author. Source: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property/library/moralprimer.html http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property/library/moralprimer.ht... You may say that "pixelizing" the photo caused no harm; the photographer obviously had a different opinion; to wit, that his "right of integrity" was harmed. While reasonable people can have varying opinions on the level of harm, if any, this principle, as described above, is not vague.

jeffreymcmanus 15y ago
You're under the mistaken impression that the original work was used to create the new album cover. That's not the case; the Kind of Bloop cover was a completely new work that happened to look like the original. If it's possible for anyone to file a lawsuit because a given work looks similar to another work, then jeebus help us all.
- gallerytungsten 15y ago
  Apparently you're no longer confused regarding the "moral right of the artist" being vague. Regarding your claim that the original work wasn't used, I think this quote from the article is pretty clear: "Before the project launched, I knew exactly what I wanted for the cover — a pixel art recreation of the original album cover..." This wasn't a case of happenstance, as you suggest.
decode 15y ago
It also seems clear that VARA doesn't apply to the photograph in question. From your link: "Under VARA, moral rights automatically vest in the author of a "work of visual art." For the purposes of VARA, visual art includes paintings, drawings, prints, sculptures, and photographs, existing in a single copy or a limited edition of 200 signed and numbered copies or fewer. In order to be protected, a photograph must have been taken for exhibition purposes only." In addition, the Fair Use doctrine in the US makes things not as clear-cut as you make them out to be. Even if the creator doesn't like it, it's sometimes the case that she doesn't get to prevent her work from appearing in certain kinds of criticism, even if it involves distortion or modification of the work.