September 08, 2004
court rules against unlicensed sampling
already breaking my 'let's not repost stories' rule (but going along with discussions tonight), from /.:
An anonymous reader writes "Looks like there is no room at all for *any* sampling of "commercially protected" music. According to the open and future-looking judges, 'Get a license or do not sample. We do not see this as stifling creativity in any significant way.'" As the article puts it, this includes "minor, unrecognisable snippets of music." The decision was in the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Comments
Did Andy Warhol ask Campbell for permission when he printed the soup cans ?
Give me a break and read Lawrence Lessig.
And check out some illegal art.
Laws are made by humans for humans, and lawyers use common sense to apply ambiguous rules to real-life cases.
As a rule of thumb : there is only going to be a lawsuit is someone feels hurt or if there is a lot of money involved.
Media repurposing is not illegal - transmission of ideas is the healthiest phenomenon in human societies. It all depends on the way it is used : tribute, plagiarism, copy, counterfeit, imposture..?
If you use the fame of a brand in a commercial product to make it popular, if you re-use a logo/symbol/character for its notoriety and pretend it's the original, then yes this should be condemned.
But if you are making pop art, a comment about popular culture, paying tribute to well-known references, in an art context, then it's completely different.
m.
Posted by: michael at September 9, 2004 01:16 AM
i completely agree. but i wish i felt like the current climate supported these types of ideas. instead people are actively trying to discourage it...
Posted by: tripp at September 9, 2004 10:23 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
