Re: more on copyright: Illegal Art: Freedom of Expression in the Corporate Age

From: Flick Harrison (email suppressed)
Date: Wed Oct 08 2008 - 16:00:02 PDT


I think you're right in another sense - copyright law is crime-
related, but lawsuits involve common law, i.e. suing someone for
using your trademark is a civil case, not criminal. Hard to apply
the term "illegal" to a tort case, I think. Not that I'm a lawyer or

The comic linked to earlier has lots of clear data about that,
including cases where (as you point out) the law wasn't broken - but
the artists still lost (caved) due to the costs of fighting the
cases. Unfortunately some of the clear data, when amalgamated,
becomes a fuzzy picture.


On 8-Oct-08, at 2:25 PM, Jim Carlile wrote:

> Every single one of these examples exploits the transformative or
> comment exceptions under fair use, and thus are not infringing.
> I hope these guys don't think they are really being outlaws here.
> They're not--
> And it ain't true about getting permission for those other things.
> Copyright holders can threaten, but they don't have a case.
> In a message dated 10/8/2008 10:56:00 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> email suppressed writes:
> Dear Frameworkers,
> Following the recent post by Chuck Kleinhans about the new Duke
> book on
> copyright, I want to remind you about "Illegal Art: Freedom of
> Expression in
> the Corporate Age" featuring an array of great works. --Caroline
> The films and videos below appropriate intellectual property, whether
> through the use of found footage, unauthorized music, or shots of
> copyrighted or trademarked material. (Filmmakers and videographers
> now have
> to get permission for just about every concert t-shirt, store sign,
> or other
> piece of intellectual property that happens to appear onscreen).

For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.