Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Obviously this short clip is compltly illegal as it was the intended purpose of the the clip (a response to the Australian Government's "Fair Use and Other Copyright Exception" Yet he is wanting it to be covered by 'fair use'?? I don't know what his argument is but i think it may be to be an 'example' of all sorts of illegal copying in the Digital age but that would be about it i think. But he didn't get permission to use all these peoples works without consulting their rights of holding a copyright for their work....I have no idea what is going on in his head...but as soon as i do i'll keep you posted.
In this case i believe that the chair was the same chair that Lebbeus wood had drawn. The director Terry Gilliam even admitted that "he reviewed a copy of the book that contained the drawing "Neomechanical Tower (Upper) Chamber". As www.benedict.com said, "The court cited the fact that the wall and floor were composed of a visibly jointed grid, the walls had the same worn texture, and a horizontal shelf and apron near the top of the vertical rail. The chairs themselves consist of four rectangular planes, arm-rests with diagonal supports, etching on the chair back. The court also noted the both spheres were suspended in front of the chair from a metal framework with similar surface designs." I agree with this commentg and too believe that this was a breech of copyright rights
Althought the tempo and instruments are similar and the melody is resonably the same as well i don't think i would have pointed it out instantly. In fact i had to keep playing the two songs over in order to see the similarities to note. I think this case is being a bit too precious and the outcome of this case shouldn't have completly over the top charges. Possibly a sma;; copyright price but nothing else.