Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Disney have stolen my artwork

katiewoodger.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–198 of 198 posts

Re: Disney have stolen my artwork

#191

Post by JDGM »

edlinfan wrote: post #188
JDGM wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was it specifically that made you angry? I enjoy chiptune music and listened to some of the linked samples thinking they were pretty good, but I still found the level of boldness in his "assessment of Kind of Bloop and the chiptune scene in general" quite refreshing and rather entertaining, even though I don't exactly agree with his opinion. I enjoy a good articulate rant from someone who is making it in good fa…

I had the same reaction to Philips' blog post. I agree with his main argument, but not how he supports it. Basically, Philips dismisses a broad range of 8-bit media without knowing how it is made. He says all you do is run some existing art through "a little bit of filtering", and like Instagram, there you have it. Basically, it's just a nasty-looking (or sounding) ripoff of existing artwork. Problem is, that's not h…

Thanks, that's a great demonstration of confronting the argument head on, and well-explained to boot.

One comment I would make on what you have said is that I think Phillips does understand how chip music is made and you have misunderstood when you write "He says all you do is run some existing art through "a little bit of filtering", and like Instagram, there you have it". The phrase "a little bit of filtering" is right at the end of the article and I believe is a reference to what Baio did with the photograph rather than to the process of creating the music.

Vitriolic as it is, I think what Phillips writes in the first two paragraphs - I would draw your attention especially to the use of the word "re-performance" - shows that he does at least understand that chip music isn't simply an existing work put through a filter and is something created more or less from scratch. He just really really hates it, and says so, in a way I find hilarious. However, now having read the piece several times, and recontextualised by your and ANTSANTS comments here, I do think it's a bit undermining to the main point for him to piggyback that rant onto the front-end of the article.

Re: Disney have stolen my artwork

#192

Post by leephillips »

Shinkei wrote: post #179
leephillips wrote: post #62

So far "the internet" seems to be on this artist's side, apparently because her work was stolen by a corporation. Recent history suggests, however, that if Andy Baio[0] or Shepard Fairey[1] had ripped her off, she would be excoriated for asserting her rights and lectured about the wonders of remix culture. [0] http://lee-phillips.org/music/whoIsTheDick/ [1] http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/08/entertainment/la-et-…

I didn't know the conclusion of the Fairey case and I had never even heard about the Baio case, so thanks for these links. I don't think you can generalize "the internet" in this way because the forums I read are fairly liberal and will tend to favor the underdog, 'David' or whatever allusion you want to depict the lowly, individual up against 'the man.' So, by that thinking, we should be expected to favor Fairey (vs…

I understand the "rooting for the underdog" tendency, and that might explain two of the examples. But how does Maisel represent the establishment? He's just an individual artist.

Re: Disney have stolen my artwork

#193

Post by leephillips »

edlinfan wrote: post #188
JDGM wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was it specifically that made you angry? I enjoy chiptune music and listened to some of the linked samples thinking they were pretty good, but I still found the level of boldness in his "assessment of Kind of Bloop and the chiptune scene in general" quite refreshing and rather entertaining, even though I don't exactly agree with his opinion. I enjoy a good articulate rant from someone who is making it in good fa…

I had the same reaction to Philips' blog post. I agree with his main argument, but not how he supports it. Basically, Philips dismisses a broad range of 8-bit media without knowing how it is made. He says all you do is run some existing art through "a little bit of filtering", and like Instagram, there you have it. Basically, it's just a nasty-looking (or sounding) ripoff of existing artwork. Problem is, that's not h…

'He says all you do is run some existing art through "a little bit of filtering"'

I didn't say that, at least not about the chiptune music. I said "He [Baio] was fully aware that he needed to pay license fees in order to distribute his versions, even though they were radically transformed and reinterpreted."

I am aware that the music was a re-performance in a different medium, not just filtering of source material. I happened not to like it. I don't see why my personal aesthetic judgments should upset anyone. If I'm not getting chiptune then it's my loss; I'll keep listening, and maybe one day it will click for me. When I first picked up Joyce's Ulysses I thought it was gibberish; now I think it's a great work of art. When I hear people claiming that Ulysses is gibberish, I don't get mad, I just smile.

Re: Disney have stolen my artwork

#194

Post by leephillips »

Shinkei wrote: post #179
leephillips wrote: post #62

So far "the internet" seems to be on this artist's side, apparently because her work was stolen by a corporation. Recent history suggests, however, that if Andy Baio[0] or Shepard Fairey[1] had ripped her off, she would be excoriated for asserting her rights and lectured about the wonders of remix culture. [0] http://lee-phillips.org/music/whoIsTheDick/ [1] http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/08/entertainment/la-et-…

I didn't know the conclusion of the Fairey case and I had never even heard about the Baio case, so thanks for these links. I don't think you can generalize "the internet" in this way because the forums I read are fairly liberal and will tend to favor the underdog, 'David' or whatever allusion you want to depict the lowly, individual up against 'the man.' So, by that thinking, we should be expected to favor Fairey (vs…

'I don't think you can generalize "the internet" in this way'

At least in the Baio case, there was really a perceptible "internet mob" that formed and attacked Maisel. It was disturbingly vicious, deliberately whipped up by John Gruber[0] and a few others, and actually spilled out into meatspace, with vandalism of Maisel's house.

(Sorry about the two replies to one comment.)

[0]http://lee-phillips.org/music/moreDick.html

Re: Disney have stolen my artwork

#196

Post by tibbon »

Noxchi wrote: post #175
madaxe wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$25k per copy, by my reckoning. I mean, seriously, if it flies in court for them, why not for her? She should/could push for ten figures of punitive damages.

Pretty sure punitive damages is only applicable if they don't do anything about it after discovering they used her artwork.

Wouldn't the same logic follow though if someone agreed to turn off their file sharing and/or delete the files they downloaded? The MPAA/RIAA doesn't seem to be ok with that.

Re: Disney have stolen my artwork

#197

Post by Shinkei »

leephillips wrote: post #192
Shinkei wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't know the conclusion of the Fairey case and I had never even heard about the Baio case, so thanks for these links. I don't think you can generalize "the internet" in this way because the forums I read are fairly liberal and will tend to favor the underdog, 'David' or whatever allusion you want to depict the lowly, individual up against 'the man.' So, by that thinking, we should be expected to favor Fairey (vs…

I understand the "rooting for the underdog" tendency, and that might explain two of the examples. But how does Maisel represent the establishment? He's just an individual artist.

I agree that it's a stretch and I would not personally characterize him that way, it seems to be the perception that is being sold to the masses.

I think how artists deal with these forms of 'infringement' speaks to their character. For example, I love Bill Watterson (Calvin & Hobbes), but I also think it is somewhat petty that he so angrily hides his creations from the world in any form. I mean he wasn't able to stop millions of stickers being made depicting Calvin pissing on car logos, but yet he wouldn't allow children to purchase a plush toy of Hobbes? It may be his prerogative, but when something artistic has impacted the lives of millions in such an important way, I believe that artists need to live with the fact that there will be derivative works. I mean I could argue that Warhol should not have been able to use the Campbell's soup logo based on the same reasoning in this article... I think the pixelation of the original image constitutes a greater abstraction than simply enlarging the image and changing the colors.

BTW, I am adopting the term "meatspace." I love it.

Re: Disney have stolen my artwork

#198

Post by leephillips »

Shinkei wrote: post #197
leephillips wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand the "rooting for the underdog" tendency, and that might explain two of the examples. But how does Maisel represent the establishment? He's just an individual artist.

I agree that it's a stretch and I would not personally characterize him that way, it seems to be the perception that is being sold to the masses. I think how artists deal with these forms of 'infringement' speaks to their character. For example, I love Bill Watterson (Calvin & Hobbes), but I also think it is somewhat petty that he so angrily hides his creations from the world in any form. I mean he wasn't able to sto…

"it seems to be the perception that is being sold to the masses."

That was part of my point - Maisel was characterized in a way that made it easier to whip up the mob against him. And that fact that Baio was a wealthy (probably) internet businessman was not mentioned.

Watterson: I love his work, too. His is unique in that he has so much respect for his own work and love for his characters that he has refused any form of licensing whatsoever - imagine how much money he has left on the table. Any time you see any of his characters on a shirt or anywhere outside of the original comics, it's a bootleg. Contrast this with Peanuts, Dilbert[0], or any other successful strip. Eventually his work will pass into the public domain, as it should, and then anyone can legally make a Hobbes toy. But I think that, until then, it's OK that he has some rights over his creations. Just because he can't stop some infringers doesn't mean that he's given up those rights. I don't see this as Watterson hiding anything: anybody can buy his books or check them out of the library.

Warhol: Interesting point. Maybe if Warhol had put his soup can image on a piece of merchandise for sale, like a record, he would have been in trouble. I'm guessing the artistic point of his paintings had something to do with the very fact that they were so close to the originals, compelling people to take a fresh look at familiar iconography. Or he was just a huckster, which was pretty much how he described himself. I think if the exact image on the cover of the "Bloop" album had been hung in a museum rather than used on merchandise, Maisel would have had a tougher case.

I stole "meatspace" from somewhere, long forgotten.

[0] Not meant as a criticism. Scott Adams has said that Watterson is an artist, while he, himself, is a businessman, and so they have different concerns.

Post reply on HN