[ajays]

The problem with hypotheticals is that there's no end to them. For every hypothetical you can come up with to show your point, I can come up with another to show mine.

Please, just use some common sense: BAIO WAS NOT PUBLISHING THE PHOTOGRAPH! He was publishing the MUSIC ; the photograph was just incidental, to show (at a glance) the relationship between the original music and the remixed Bloop music. Do you REALLY think that people bought the album because of the pixellated artwork? It had absolutely NO impact on the sales. I've bought many a record (and CD) in my lifetime, and I don't recall ever buying a single one because of the cover.

I am a hardcore supporter of the rights of the individual artists and musicians, and even I think Maisel was dead wrong.

[antiterra]

Insulting everyone by implying they haven't used common sense simply because they don't agree with you is incredibly fatuous. Chill with the righteous HEY YOU GUYS IF YOU JUST SAW IT MY WAY caps and italics; most of us aren't particularly dumb here.

The pixel art was definitely published by any useful meaning of the word publish, 200 copies of the liner version. Also, it was the background of the site, clearly used as promotion.

Let's say everyone accepts your argument that you can only violate artist rights if you gain a profit directly driven by the unauthorized use. It'd be perfectly fine to use a struggling unsigned band's best song to sell Volkswagens, since no one would buy a car because of music in an ad.

Of course, the unsigned band was just about to license their song to sell cat food and pay the rent, but now the cat food manufacturer doesn't want the same song that's in that damn Volkswagen commercial. Oops! Shoulda moved faster, indie band!

If you think that an artist or a musician should have no control over where their work is reproduced or published as long as it can be argued that it wasn't the main draw of any profit, you're not a hardcore supporter of the rights of individual artists and musicians.

I wasn't around for any negotiations Maisel's or his attorney had with Baio, but it does see like Maisel was a bit of a jerk about this. A jerk solidly in his rights, however.

[micks56]

First, I can't say that I am surprised my post currently sits at 4 downvotes here on HN. A programmer's work is sacred while a photographer's is not.

Use some common sense? Baio absolutely published the photograph, which is why we are all having this discussion.

It doesn't matter why people buy something or if it had an impact on sales. A copyright holder retains the sole right to publish a work and its derivatives. That is the essence of how we protect works of art fixed in a tangible means of expression.