Compulsive archivist that I am, I've done my best to compile a full list
of Joywar links, as well a some excerpts of interesting arguments and
attitudes for and against. (I also have made screen shots of nearly
everything, for documentary purposes); this will be the last installment:http://firstpulseprojects.net/joywar.html
For all of you who've been supportive and managed to have some fun with
this, I'll say thanks again. The legal case seems to have 'gone dark'
which is a good thing considering how much $$$ it would have cost each of
us had it gone on to court.
In the meantime, as far as I can tell:
- it would have been more exciting, especially for the Italian bloggers,
if I had been sued by Pepsi; apologies to the Italians! But this is not
about trademarks or logos or corporate branding; not about Barbie, not
about Toywar even (though joywar has great euphony...); it's purely a case
of artist v. artist, copyright v. fair use, and permissions culture v.
- the Molotov painting was bought by one of my old collectors in order to
protect it (apparently once it passes from my ownership it can't be
destroyed in the case that the plaintiff is awarded destruction of the
offending painting as part of damages); I wonder if it will fit over his
couch? Anyway it allowed me to pay my lawyer;
- the precedent most often referred to, Art Rogers v. Jeff Koons,
("Puppies") was a landmark loss and blow to fair use; however, from what
I've learned, strides have been made in favor of fair use during the 5
years since that debacle;
- just because a case is lost does not establish morality, right and
wrong (cf: Eldred v. Ashcroft). Al it does is establish that someone can
try and sue you based on the strength of the argument set in that
precedent -- but they could always lose. Copyright law is changing, is
being written and battled over as we speak. See the Prelinger case:http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/public/
- Nothing is black and white;
- attitudes toward piracy and copyright have been polarized and blown way
out of proportion; everyone here (esp. me!) should read Lawrence Lessig's
new book, Free Culture, or else DL a short version:http://www.lessig.org/
- copyright law has continuously changed over the decades in order to
adapt to new technologies and new forms of expression; it needs to catch
up badly, now more than ever;
- I still would argue--if I was a lawyer--all kinds of reasons why
'Molotov' is a good example of transformative use. Some of you here have
helped me think of new angles why it is "new". I don't agree that the work
is "derivative" in the legal sense, but I can see why someone might think
so. In all my work I walk the fine line, and that is probably part of the
point of what I do;
- fair use, which allows for parody or commentary on an original work,
unfortunatley doesn't cover work that comments on something other than
the original, as Peter Luining points out in his reference to Rogers v.
Koons below. This came up in the discussion w/ my lawyer. It's why my case
is a little too far ahead of the case law. I hope that some day this
part of copyright law will catch up with art and culture. As it stands
it's too narrow and parochial for my blood.
So that's it, unless someone has something to add.