4 ms·

Hey. As the hacker behind the version at http://print.imaj.es/ http://print.imaj.es/ - I figured I'd share my response here too. Ben's response is understanda

by imajes 15y ago

Hey. As the hacker behind the version at http://print.imaj.es/ http://print.imaj.es/ - I figured I'd share my response here too. Ben's response is understandable - designers and hackers alike are proud of their creations and often are quick and strong-willed in defending their work. However, the project that he's been running internally at FB itself aped the original British Ministry of Information project during wartime - the keep calm and carry on meme. Ben's sentiment to keep focused is good. It's so good that when I saw it, I felt a resonance, a reminder that I should be shipping - so that I wanted to right there and then, make it, produce it, ship it. So I went to work with my (legal) copies of illustrator and photoshop, and crafted my version. (see it here: http://print.imaj.es/products/stay-focused http://print.imaj.es/products/stay-focused). The comparison ends here, though. I took the sentence, sure. But my process is letterpress, with really awesome paper, all made by hand (by me) locally. So, I think at this point there's a valid conversation about what is art, what is originality, and how that can be defined - my work can easily be seen as derivative, implied. I don't make a comparison here with Andy Warhol (who's work will far outstrip anything I'll ever make creatively), but Ben's argument here extends to the notion that Warhol's Campbell's soup work is theft; whereas many others (myself included) see it as a valid expression of the modernity the cans represented. I see the poster as a valid expression of the notion of being a developer-entrepreneur, of needing to keep on the track and ship - a mantra we can all live by. Ben accused me of theft, suggesting I should donate profits to charity. He used language such as this being a rip-off, and worse. I have thought about it and frankly I don't see it as theft, but as the normal course of art. Theft would be to make it and not reference the original - to ignore the ancestry and pretend it doesn't exist. And, for the record, I'll donate any profits to charity- if there are any. As it stands, there's little chance the project will even get printed, as there is not yet sufficient orders.

petercooper 15y ago
Quite right, sir. But this gives me an idea for a different poster you could make which I think both you and many Hacker News users would appreciate seeing every day: "Don't let the bastards grind you down." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegitimi_non_carborundum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegitimi_non_carborundum
j_c 15y ago
Andy Warhol produced numerous versions of his Campbell soup, in doing so he added some value in asking questions, if it was just one can of soup this wouldn't have been the case. A can of soup doesn't equal a painting of a can of soup. There are many differences.
brennannovak 15y ago
So @benbarry made some cool posters. Solid idea. Good job buddy. But seriously, everyone involved in this needs to contemplate the ridiculousness of these whiny teenaged first world problems. Print your posters. You can't copyright text on a page.
- georgemcbay 15y ago
  "You can't copyright text on a page." uh... what? Of course you can. Granted, Fair Use may or may not come into play depending upon the length of the text being reused, but "text on a page" is exactly what copyright was invented for in the first place.
  - Zancarius 15y ago
    > Granted, Fair Use may or may not come into play depending upon the length of the text being reused Sort of. Judging by a cursory glance at the USPTO indicates that there's no real hard-and-fast rule on just how much you can use, legally, before copyright kicks in. It's really something that has to be decided on a per-case basis: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html In short: You can copyright text on a page. That much is obvious--that's why we have copyright, as you pointed out, but it doesn't just depend on length. It depends on presentation, typography, stylistic decisions, and so many other things that this particular situation is probably a legal gray area. That said, I very much doubt a judge would be willing to hear this, and I seriously doubt the designer would bother himself with pestering Facebook to take it to court. Another argument worth considering is this: At what point does it become copyright and at what point does it become protected speech?

by imajes 15y ago

petercooper 15y ago

Quite right, sir. But this gives me an idea for a different poster you could make which I think both you and many Hacker News users would appreciate seeing every day: "Don't let the bastards grind you down." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegitimi_non_carborundum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegitimi_non_carborundum

j_c 15y ago

Andy Warhol produced numerous versions of his Campbell soup, in doing so he added some value in asking questions, if it was just one can of soup this wouldn't have been the case. A can of soup doesn't equal a painting of a can of soup. There are many differences.

brennannovak 15y ago

So @benbarry made some cool posters. Solid idea. Good job buddy. But seriously, everyone involved in this needs to contemplate the ridiculousness of these whiny teenaged first world problems. Print your posters. You can't copyright text on a page.

georgemcbay 15y ago
"You can't copyright text on a page." uh... what? Of course you can. Granted, Fair Use may or may not come into play depending upon the length of the text being reused, but "text on a page" is exactly what copyright was invented for in the first place.
- Zancarius 15y ago
  > Granted, Fair Use may or may not come into play depending upon the length of the text being reused Sort of. Judging by a cursory glance at the USPTO indicates that there's no real hard-and-fast rule on just how much you can use, legally, before copyright kicks in. It's really something that has to be decided on a per-case basis: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html In short: You can copyright text on a page. That much is obvious--that's why we have copyright, as you pointed out, but it doesn't just depend on length. It depends on presentation, typography, stylistic decisions, and so many other things that this particular situation is probably a legal gray area. That said, I very much doubt a judge would be willing to hear this, and I seriously doubt the designer would bother himself with pestering Facebook to take it to court. Another argument worth considering is this: At what point does it become copyright and at what point does it become protected speech?