Calvin and Muad'Dib

[shoju]

No. That falls under Fair Use as far as laws are concerned.

If you can't see the difference between the Warhol Image, and Calvin and Muad'Dib, there is a problem, and it isn't the DMCA.

I don't. Especially Warhol's lithographs of popular cartoons.





I'm still concerned about DMCA, and the gray area surrounding appropriation in art forms.

http://www.artnews.com/2013/05/09/is-any...ation-art/

On your 2nd point, I totally agree with your analysis.

I'll be honest, Warhol's Mickey has always confounded me. There is no reason that should have been allowed. That's Intellectual Property. That's Disney's Copyrighted work. How he was able to get away with that, I have no idea.

But Calvin and Muad'Dib, isn't whoever ran that website's work. It's not his art. He didn't even pull a warhol and "Re-draw" it. He used it, frame for frame, and changed the dialog. That's it.

IMO, Warhol's Mickey, and Calvin and Muad'Dib, are both in violation of copyright and IP laws, art appropriation or not.

Also, A good lawyer, will argue that the Campell's can in your previous example, isn't artwork. It's not intended as artwork, and it's use in a piece of artwork doesn't violate any laws.

Sort of like, Maxx Barry using Nike, and McDonald's, and every other corporation in the world in his novel Jennifer Government.

Or Like me, creating a Fender Bass in a piece of Art, be it drawn, or photographed.

Using something in art, and Using someone elses art, is the heart of the issue.

Think of it more like..... When you are a musician, if you want to record a song that was previously written / recorded by someone else, you need

1.) Their Permission.
2.) Probably some form of formal contract stipulating rights and royalties.

You have to do this, even if you are planning to change up the song. Say.... Dave Matthews Band, recording All Along the Watchtower. They needed to get permission, and pay royalties, on that song to Bob Dylan. Now in the music industry, it's handled a little differently, because you have ASCAP, and other services that allow this to happen.

Even thought he song that they produced was performed in a completely different manner than the Bob Dylan Song, it was still Bob Dylan's Work, and he was still owed the royalties of the song, and DMB still had to get the pre-requisite "permission" from BMI/ASCAP.

While Calvin and Muad'Dib, is "different" than C&H, it's still C&H. They needed to get the pre-requisite permissions, etc... to use it.

They didn't. Had they handled this, the DMCA wouldn't have gone through, unless they were just really stupid, and didn't think ahead to make sure that the information was readily available to the host.

Now, on the other hand, If I write a song, and I reference, Dylan, or All Along the Watchtower, by name, I'm not required to get permission from anyone for that. I could probably even include a line or two (there are stipulations and guidelines for that type of thing already in place), without needing to worry about it.

Just remember Using something in art =/= using someone else's art to make "new" art.