Fair Use is not a right; it's an affirmative defense (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense</a>) that needs to be used in court.<p>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: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyucXC6pWug" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyucXC6pWug</a>
Not that I agree with lawyers suing over this, but one problem is that the pixel-art nature of the Miles Davis cover is very subtle rather than obvious chunky pixels as is typically done. At one level I applaud that as historically accurate; graphics even in the 1980s weren't as awful as a lot of pixelart implies, but on the other hand I can understand the argument that the pixel art and the original were too close.
It would be interesting to hear why he paid royalties to get a license for the songs but not for the cover art.<p>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.
> "It breaks my heart that a project I did for fun, on the side, and out of pure love and dedication to the source material ended up costing me so much — emotionally and financially."<p>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.<p>> "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."<p>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.<p>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.
If he'd created an anonymous persona for his pixel artwork, Maisel would have been left pounding sand. So if there's no reason to link stuff to your meatspace identity, why risk it?
It sucks that this happened and I'm glad he found a tolerable payout and resolved the issue with the owner of the photograph.<p>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.
So where is the list of people who give money to Jay Maisel so I can opt not to do business with them anymore? Do you really change anyone's opinion on most issues other than giving a hint which behaviors are unprofitable because they piss people off?<p>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.