[Shinkei]

I didn't know the conclusion of the Fairey case and I had never even heard about the Baio case, so thanks for these links.

I don't think you can generalize "the internet" in this way because the forums I read are fairly liberal and will tend to favor the underdog, 'David' or whatever allusion you want to depict the lowly, individual up against 'the man.' So, by that thinking, we should be expected to favor Fairey (vs AP), Baio (vs Maisel ) and the current article's artist (vs Disney). You may say that Maisel is not so black and white, but consider that he still represents the establishment.

Just to specifically address Lee Phillips' article. He clearly has a personal bias that doesn't help his argument with lines like this referring to 'chiptune':

"I don’t get it either, but if people want to create music where part of the aesthetic is that it’s supposed to sound bad, I believe they have every right to."

I have plenty of fond memories to music from Battletoads, Mega Man and Final Fantasy so I think he's fighting a losing battle if he's going to try and convince people that there is no merit to 8-bit music production.

[leephillips]

'I don't think you can generalize "the internet" in this way'

At least in the Baio case, there was really a perceptible "internet mob" that formed and attacked Maisel. It was disturbingly vicious, deliberately whipped up by John Gruber[0] and a few others, and actually spilled out into meatspace, with vandalism of Maisel's house.

(Sorry about the two replies to one comment.)

[0]http://lee-phillips.org/music/moreDick.html

[leephillips]

I understand the "rooting for the underdog" tendency, and that might explain two of the examples. But how does Maisel represent the establishment? He's just an individual artist.

[Shinkei]

I agree that it's a stretch and I would not personally characterize him that way, it seems to be the perception that is being sold to the masses.

I think how artists deal with these forms of 'infringement' speaks to their character. For example, I love Bill Watterson (Calvin & Hobbes), but I also think it is somewhat petty that he so angrily hides his creations from the world in any form. I mean he wasn't able to stop millions of stickers being made depicting Calvin pissing on car logos, but yet he wouldn't allow children to purchase a plush toy of Hobbes? It may be his prerogative, but when something artistic has impacted the lives of millions in such an important way, I believe that artists need to live with the fact that there will be derivative works. I mean I could argue that Warhol should not have been able to use the Campbell's soup logo based on the same reasoning in this article... I think the pixelation of the original image constitutes a greater abstraction than simply enlarging the image and changing the colors.

BTW, I am adopting the term "meatspace." I love it.

[leephillips]

"it seems to be the perception that is being sold to the masses."

That was part of my point - Maisel was characterized in a way that made it easier to whip up the mob against him. And that fact that Baio was a wealthy (probably) internet businessman was not mentioned.

Watterson: I love his work, too. His is unique in that he has so much respect for his own work and love for his characters that he has refused any form of licensing whatsoever - imagine how much money he has left on the table. Any time you see any of his characters on a shirt or anywhere outside of the original comics, it's a bootleg. Contrast this with Peanuts, Dilbert[0], or any other successful strip. Eventually his work will pass into the public domain, as it should, and then anyone can legally make a Hobbes toy. But I think that, until then, it's OK that he has some rights over his creations. Just because he can't stop some infringers doesn't mean that he's given up those rights. I don't see this as Watterson hiding anything: anybody can buy his books or check them out of the library.

Warhol: Interesting point. Maybe if Warhol had put his soup can image on a piece of merchandise for sale, like a record, he would have been in trouble. I'm guessing the artistic point of his paintings had something to do with the very fact that they were so close to the originals, compelling people to take a fresh look at familiar iconography. Or he was just a huckster, which was pretty much how he described himself. I think if the exact image on the cover of the "Bloop" album had been hung in a museum rather than used on merchandise, Maisel would have had a tougher case.

I stole "meatspace" from somewhere, long forgotten.

[0] Not meant as a criticism. Scott Adams has said that Watterson is an artist, while he, himself, is a businessman, and so they have different concerns.