Here's a recent (long) video on fair use that I enjoyed, and might be interesting for some of you here who are interested in this sort of thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyucXC6pWug
Hiring artists to create retro versions of the music and hiring an artist to create a retro version of the album cover seem like pretty analogous situations.
There's no similar existing framework or precedent for photographs, and the rights involved are much less clear. There's plenty of evidence of other similarly transformative artwork based on photographs (described in the article) is considered fair use in the artistic community. I find most convincing the fact that the photograph is primarily documentation of a factual situation (Miles Davis playing trumpet), something which many other people saw, and which in and of itself is not copyrightable. Whereas the songwriting involved in creating the music for the album is entirely creative and not documentary in the slightest.
I think there are plenty of other good arguments about why his use of the photograph was Fair Use in the article.
It seems like he just overlooked the cover art piece. That sucks how much damage to a project an unmalicious seemingly small mistake can make on the legal side. In that regard, it's valuable to have access to lawyers and legal resources just to avoid all the BS that comes along with lawsuits and legalese. It's not just a matter of being intelligent or capable, but also able to jump through all the hoops the right way in the legal system, which puts most non-lawyers at a disadvantage.
> "Anyone can file a lawsuit and the costs of defending yourself against a claim are high, regardless of how strong your case is. Combined with vague standards, the result is a chilling effect for every independent artist hoping to build upon or reference copyrighted works."
As can be popularly seen vis-a-vis DCMA takedown requests, the trivial-ness of of sending a C&D or demand letter out to virtually anyone makes this process a money-making machine for law firms. It's a win-win for them. You settle and they make a profit, or you draw out a legal battle at a higher cost and they make a bigger profit. Honestly, it's a tarnish on our legal system that it so often rewards those with bigger wallets.
Not all lawyers are bad, and there are times where the 'little guy' may be thankful IP law exists, but it's when someone like this gets screwed that the legal system seems unfair. It's one thing to speak softly and carry a big stick, and another to pick a fight for lunch money.
No. There is no "I use it". Only the fake persona does.
> But they can problably force me to take down the image anyway?
If you created an anonymous Tor onion site, they'd have a hard time forcing you. But of course, then it's less accessible. So you might just use hosting that caters to spammers and worse.
All that said, this chiptune record is a beautiful homage to the source material. I highly recommend anyone that's interested to find it and give it a listen.
How about a ublock origin filter that auto removes anything created by the artist? Obviously no content filter belongs in default but it could be offered.
