互联网与文化waxy.org编辑精选
Kind of Screwed：一次版权纠纷的自述
Kind of Screwed
2011 — 2019，它一次次回到首页
黑点是上首页（≥ 50 分）的那次投稿，空心点是没冲上去的投稿，点越大分数越高。
导读
Andy Baio 讲述自己因在 8-bit 音乐专辑 Kind of Bloop 封面上使用了 Jay Maisel 著名 Miles Davis 照片的像素化版本，被对方以版权侵权起诉，最终被迫赔偿 32,000 美元和解的经历。文章详细剖析了合理使用的模糊性以及小创作者面对法律威胁时的无力处境。
为什么经久不衰：它以亲身经历揭示了版权法与合理使用在实践中的巨大鸿沟——法律上可能站得住，但打不起官司——这一困境至今仍困扰着所有二次创作者。
HN 评论精选
诉讼成本极其高昂，即使占理也可能被迫和解
在任何与强硬对手的严肃法律纠纷中，法律程序都会把你拖垮。即使事实对你完全有利、案件一开始就该被驳回，仅提出动议的标价就是 1 万美元起（更可能是 2.5 万到 5 万才能彻底了结）；走完证据开示并在庭前获得简易判决？10 万美元起，外加一年多的煎熬；打到庭审并获得胜诉？25 万美元起，耗时一两年甚至更久，别忘了还有上诉。大多数案子根本到不了庭审，成本是促成和解的主要因素。狄更斯在《荒凉山庄》里夸张但准确地抓住了这一点，如今几乎没变。
grellas查看英文原文
The legal process will grind you in any serious dispute against a determined adversary. Get a supremely optimal outcome and get the case dismissed right out the gate because it is legally defective even assuming all the facts alleged are true? Sticker price: $10K and up (more likely $25K to $50K to make it definitive after several opportunities to amend are given to the adversary). Go through discovery to find out what witnesses will say on deposition, dig through all key documents, and then move for and get a summary judgment before trial by which a case is tossed on grounds that the law allows only one result based on material facts that are undisputed bearing on the legal point? Sticker price: $100K and up, with a year or more of grief thrown in as a bonus. Go through trial and get vindicated by a judge or jury based on a complete presentation of evidence? Sticker price: $250K and up, after a year or two (or more) of wrangling. And don't forget the appeals. Most cases never get to trial and cost is a major factor prompting litigants to settle even though they are not particularly happy with an outcome. Charles Dickens, though he exaggerated for dramatic effect, got the spirit of this right in Bleak House (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarndyce_and_Jarndyce), and little has changed since. This, by the way, doesn't mean that you can't defend against cease-and-desist demands. Costs cut both ways. But it is sad how many times parties who are right nonetheless must fold because the costs of engaging (monetary and otherwise) are just not worth it.
原作者根本不会授权，这种再创作本身是有价值的艺术行为
值得注意的是，寻求授权本来就是死路：Maisel 告诉律师他绝不会授权像素化版本，称自己是摄影纯粹主义者，感到被冒犯。像素化版本对一张 chiptune 致敬专辑来说再合适不过，任何真正关心艺术的人都应为这种模仿和再创作叫好。我不喜欢那些认为自己的作品神圣到任何改动都是亵渎的艺术家。成名本身有很大运气成分，每个知名艺术家背后都有十个更有才华却默默无闻的人。
Confusion查看英文原文
And it's worth noting that trying to license the image would have been moot. When asked how much he would've charged for a license, Maisel told his lawyer that he would never have granted a license for the pixel art. "He is a purist when it comes to his photography," his lawyer wrote. "With this in mind, I am certain you can understand that he felt violated to find his image of Miles Davis, one of his most well-known and highly-regarded images, had been pixellated , without his permission, and used in a number of forms including on several websites accessible around the world." The pixelated version was incredibly appropriate for a chiptune tribute and anyone that claims to care about art should applaud such a use of an imitation, mockup or inspired work. I don't like artists who think their work is so special that any change ruins it. 99.999% of people don't care about his original 'masterpiece' in any way, but a few more may care now that there was a different rendition of it. Artists should recognize there is a bit of luck involved in them and their art becoming famous. For every well known great artist, there are ten who were better, but simply didn't become known.
换位思考：大公司对小创作者做同样的事，舆论反应会完全不同
反过来想：如果 EMI 拿走一位独立摄影师的照片，用 Photoshop 滤镜简单处理后就放上 Coldplay 的专辑，互联网会愤怒吗？如果摄影师起诉并赢得 3.2 万美元赔偿，大家会满意还是嫌太少？我理解 Jay 在这件事上做得过分，但他到底错在哪里？
swilliams查看英文原文
What would the reaction be if, for the sake of argument, EMI took a photo that a small independent photographer made, ran it through what looks like a basic Photoshop filter, and slapped it on the next Coldplay album? Internet outrage right? And then what would happen if the photographer sued EMI and Coldplay, and won a $32K settlement? I'm guessing the Internet would either be satisfied or angry that $32K is too little for such deep pockets. I understand and agree that Jay was too vicious in this, but how is he in the wrong again?
过长的版权保护期背离了版权法的初衷
一张 50 年前的照片居然还在版权保护期内，这很荒谬。版权法本应鼓励艺术家创作新作品，如今却沦为让艺术家（主要是大公司）永久榨取单一作品金钱的工具。
ChrisLTD查看英文原文
It's ridiculous that a photograph from 50 years ago is still under copyright. Copyright law is supposed to encourage artists to create new work. However, it's been perverted to let artists (but mostly large corporations) milk money from a single cow in perpetuity.
历次讨论
同类还值得读
如今电脑上几乎所有操作在感知上都比 1983 年更慢（2017）
Almost everything on computers is perceptually slower than it was in 1983 (2017)
2017 年的推文串认为，尽管计算机硬件比 1983 年快得多，日常操作的感知速度却常常更慢：启动、界面响应和网络应用被层层抽象、动画、后台检查与网络依赖拖累。
互联网与文化上首页 5 次 · 2017–2020twitter.com网站肥胖危机
The Website Obesity Crisis
Maciej Cegłowski（idlewords）的经典演讲文稿《网站肥胖症危机》，批评现代网页越来越臃肿：动辄数 MB 的 JavaScript、追踪脚本和广告，把本可以轻…
互联网与文化上首页 5 次 · 2016–2021idlewords.com编辑精选亚马逊那本标价 23,698,655.93 美元的苍蝇书
Amazon’s $23,698,655.93 book about flies
博文讲的是亚马逊上一本关于果蝇的二手书被标到 23,698,655.93 美元。
互联网与文化上首页 5 次 · 2011–2022michaeleisen.org浏览器 User-Agent 字符串的历史
History of the browser user-agent string (2008)
2008 年的经典文章用戏谑的“创世纪”口吻，讲述浏览器 User-Agent 字符串如何从简单的标识演变成层层叠加的伪装：浏览器为了绕过按 UA 分发的网站检测，纷纷把自己伪装…
互联网与文化上首页 5 次 · 2012–2022webaim.org编辑精选最后的问题——艾萨克·阿西莫夫
The Last Question - Isaac Asimov
阿西莫夫最著名的短篇科幻小说《最后的问题》的在线全文。
互联网与文化上首页 5 次 · 2009–2019multivax.com编辑精选