Comments on: Haitian copyright case turns on Twitter’s TOS

By: ayanna morel

ayanna morel — Fri, 21 May 2010 00:30:45 +0000

I am Daniel Morel’s daughter, and I believe that it is wrong to take some ones picture and sell it and not give that person credit. It is the same thing with Limewire and Frostwire, if someone is caught downloading songs then they either will get fined or arrested BECAUSE the artist itself did not get any credit. Therefore my father had pictures stolen. from him and the person sold therefore my father SHOULD get credit for the pictures of his that are sold. Even though they were on Twitter and any one could take them, that does give the right to anyone to take them AND SELL them without his permission. And that goes or anybody who posts picture online anywhere. So I believe my Father should get the money back or at least some of it back it is unfair. It is irresponsible for anyone to take these picture. Papa I got your back.

Ayanna Morel

By: BP Myers

BP Myers — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 20:58:09 +0000

@Dan: Nyuck nyuck nyuck.

And thanks.

By: Dan Kennedy

Dan Kennedy — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 20:18:40 +0000

@BP: Here you go.

By: BP Myers

BP Myers — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 19:59:57 +0000

@Dan Kennedy says: What Warhol did was “transformative” under the fair-use doctrine.

Ironic term, that, in that Warhol didn’t “transform” the work at all, he merely copied it.

Rauschenberg was “transformative.” Warhol was a Xerox machine.

But we’ll never really know in the Cambell’s Soup example, as it was never adjudicated. But apparently, his use of the “Flowers” photograph wasn’t transformative, or at least he opted to settle.

Don’t get me wrong, I love Warhol’s work and deem it important. But had I been the photographer who snapped the original Jackie photo, or the graphic artist who came up with the original Cambpell’s Soup can, or the Brillo box design, I might be feeling a little ripped off.

By: Dan Kennedy

Dan Kennedy — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 19:45:50 +0000

@BP: What Warhol did was “transformative” under the fair-use doctrine. You can always sue, and you can always choose to settle. And sometimes judges and juries make bad decisions. But the doctrine is the doctrine. He took copyrighted material and transformed it into something else, which is generally enough for protection purposes.

Can’t put my hands on it instantly, but interestingly enough, a major court case on fair use that found against a guy who was selling Three Stooges T-shirts specifically cites Warhol’s Marilyn Monroe series. The Three Stooges guy didn’t do anything but use a picture of the Stooges, and the judge said that made his case different from what Warhol did.

By: BP Myers

BP Myers — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 19:14:39 +0000

@Dan says: But if he’s a copyright-infringer, then so was Andy Warhol. And he wasn’t.

If Andy Warhol wasn’t a copyright-infringer, then there’s no such thing as copy-right infringement. Not sure why Cambell’s didn’t sue, though I suspect that whatever buzz was generated from his art was good for the company.

But Warhol was sued by the photographer who took the photo his “Flowers” series was based on, and ended up paying her off in art.

It is funny and ironic to see the Andy Warhol Foundation today cling tightly to their own copyrights of Warhol’s copy-right infringed work.

By: AFP Sues Photographer Whose Photographs It Used Without Permission | Tech-Page.com

Wed, 28 Apr 2010 18:00:23 +0000

[...] as Dan Kennedy points out, the AFP’s defense appears to be based on a bizarre reading of the Twitter terms of service. Those terms of service read: You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on [...]

By: AFP Sues Photographer Whose Photographs It Used Without Permission | PHP Hosts

Wed, 28 Apr 2010 17:55:38 +0000

By: Dan Kennedy

Dan Kennedy — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 17:29:27 +0000

If Shepard Fairey is not protected by fair use, then fair use has lost all meaning. I suspect he is being singled out because he’s a hypocrite and a self-confessed liar. But if he’s a copyright-infringer, then so was Andy Warhol. And he wasn’t.

There is almost nothing journalists need to know about trademark law unless they are going into business for themselves.

By: L.K. Collins

L.K. Collins — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 16:56:14 +0000

BPMeyers, your statements are correct, copyright and trademark law are as written, and the internet pirate tenes to either ignore or deliberately disregard the conventions.

See: Shepherd Fairey, his Obama HOPE poster, and his lame excuses for ignoring the obvious copyright infringements.

I sincerely hope that, along with the First Amendment discussions that Dan has with his journalism students, that he has equally ardent and pointed discussions on copyrights and trade marks.

It would be sad if the next generation hasn’t a clue as to what is right and what is wrong…not that this one does, either.