Reply #67: The very idea that it is illegal to create a collage using someone else's art is patently absurd.

[Leopolds Ghost]

I recently created a collage using another artists' work. I was concerned
to get his permission not because I had to but because I wanted to (it is
a political poster and I did not wish to misuse his work - see sig link.)
and also because he was an old friend. But there are also other issues here.
I was publishing it (on DU-only) for noncommercial consideration. If it were
for commercial consideration then the issue would be whether the original
artist should be partially credited. But it's a collage of multiple works.
Are you familiar at all with any collage artists? In the case of this poster
I would credit Mike, because it's mostly (50%) based on his work, although
it is also parody/satire (and his original posters were parody/satire of
"Rosie the Riveter" and other works that would STILL be under copyright if
we used your logic.) The point is that under this new bill, the fact that it is
noncommercial does not matter. all of DU would theoretically be subject to
DNS blacklisting for posting of images under copyright without EXPRESS
PERMISSION of the copyright holder (which includes 99% of images on the web.)

By your assessment an image or clip is only fair use if it is published
(which you say is not allowed) attached to a disclaimer defending its
status as fair use and hence exempt from automatic challenge.

Also note that the artist would have NO LEGAL RECOURSE under SOPA / STOP IP Act
unless the original work were VALUED AT OVER $2500. they'd be fucked if someone
tried to SELL their original work, or barely modified versions thereof, unless
they could prove that the work was valued over $2500.

This law would ultimately *make* what you deem illegal, illegal (i.e. fair use --
parody, satire, pastiche, sampling, excerpts, criticism, image macros, cover songs
(and Weird Al Yankovic songs) DU VIDEOS, and Youtube itself, and also, e.g.
screencaps of the NBC / ABC / FOX livestream of current events --

but only for corporate-controlled intellectual property.

If you BELIEVE that the law will not be selectively enforced, I AGAIN refer you
to ASCAP and BMI policies towards noncommercial music performance in REAL LIFE.

Policies they are attempting to apply to radio as well (pay-to-play).

Last but not least, anyone who supports the copyright laws as they are CURRENTLY structured would have been laughed out of any intellectual circles 100 years ago. Anyone who is educated knows that Shakespeare's entire canon is composed of derivative works. That is how art was traditionally done, one artist would be inspired by another. That's also how folk music was done, which is why folk barely exists anymore. It's all controlled by the record industry.

This law is NOT narrowly tailored to piracy of whole works (which won't even be affected by this law as that is already illegal and is not done over HTTP.)