Van Dyke Parks pulls a Mike Love over painting....

[Dr. Tim]

Nice argument for the defense, BJL!  But the big question to you and filledeplage is:  who has the stones to pay the lawyers to find out who's right?

Van Dyke's claim is colorable enough to survive a motion to dismiss; it might even be enough for an injunction to issue until the issue is finally decided.  Maybe at the end it would be deemed de minimis infringement or fair use.  Or not.

That's where a lot of these fights are won and lost.  Who is willing to pay to be found right.  And be ready to pay more if found wrong.  (In copyright cases, the loser pays the winner's attorney fees).

Which is why I suggested the real sin was the appropriating artist not just asking Van Dyke first: he may have been OK with it.  

These things cut both ways.  Remember the kerfluffle between the culture-jam group Negativland and Island Records, label to U2?  Island got the court order, but eventually Negativland won the P.R. war, U2 were embarrassed, and Negativland reissued their little "U2" LP as  a "bootleg" with Universal pretending not to look.  But it cost Negativland $50K to get there.  So who was right?

[filledeplage]

Nice argument for the defense, BJL!  But the big question to you and filledeplage is:  who has the stones to pay the lawyers to find out who's right?

Van Dyke's claim is colorable enough to survive a motion to dismiss; it might even be enough for an injunction to issue until the issue is finally decided.  Maybe at the end it would be deemed de minimis infringement or fair use.  Or not.

That's where a lot of these fights are won and lost.  Who is willing to pay to be found right.  And be ready to pay more if found wrong.  (In copyright cases, the loser pays the winner's attorney fees).

Which is why I suggested the real sin was the appropriating artist not just asking Van Dyke first: he may have been OK with it.  

These things cut both ways.  Remember the kerfluffle between the culture-jam group Negativland and Island Records, label to U2?  Island got the court order, but eventually Negativland won the P.R. war, U2 were embarrassed, and Negativland reissued their little "U2" LP as  a "bootleg" with Universal pretending not to look.  But it cost Negativland $50K to get there.  So who was right?

Interesting article on a blog called geniosity written by an attorney Friedman.  Where is the line of demarcation?  
There might be some artist group who have lawyers volunteer probono for artist communities.  

My personal take (not a legal analysis) was that the work was "inspired" by the original.  That the artist is reported to be a big fan supports that.  Some legal people are of the position that the original person could actually profit from the inspired work.  The old publicity concept.

There was a similar issue with the Katy Perry song...and it was more of a "salute" to the originals.  And the originals were reasonable about the matter.   No one wants their stuff exploited or reproduced.  And if you write it, you should be profiting from it, and attribution should be properly accorded and royalties distributed.

 But most of us, I think, like to think that we have inspired someone along the way, enough to be creative, without crossing that vague and changing black line, into "substantial similarity."  Sort of shows that the job was done well.  

[DonnyL]

Absolutely right. Van Dyke is protecting his intellectual property which has been used unlawfully.

LOL. IP is an unnecessary evil, a residual of the middle ages from which free market societies emerged, a holdover
of the days when governments and royalty granted monopolies to favored courtiers. VDP does not own those words any more than I 'own' the words you are reading. Read http://mises.org/resources/3582/Against-Intellectual-Property if you have an interest in IP (an interest that isn't predatory).
[/quote]

This is preposterous!

Regardless of financial interest, a creator has a right to determine what is done or not done to their creation.  Without this legal right, any greedy corporation could take anyone's creative output and do whatever they want with it to sell a product.  Or another artist could use your work in any way they see fit.

Intellectual properly laws protect integrity of content.

[grillo]

Absolutely right. Van Dyke is protecting his intellectual property which has been used unlawfully.

LOL. IP is an unnecessary evil, a residual of the middle ages from which free market societies emerged, a holdover
of the days when governments and royalty granted monopolies to favored courtiers. VDP does not own those words any more than I 'own' the words you are reading. Read http://mises.org/resources/3582/Against-Intellectual-Property if you have an interest in IP (an interest that isn't predatory).

This is preposterous!

Regardless of financial interest, a creator has a right to determine what is done or not done to their creation.  Without this legal right, any greedy corporation could take anyone's creative output and do whatever they want with it to sell a product.  Or another artist could use your work in any way they see fit.

Intellectual properly laws protect integrity of content.

[/quote] Hahaha. Yeah, the integrity of Mickey Mouse, which has forced the 'LAW' to change so Disney can control 'it's character' ad infinitum. Do you see where it is just moneyed interests (not necessarily a bad thing) using government force (always a bad thing) to control their 'investments'?
Also a creator doesn't always have the rights to their creations even now. If you work for a company and come up with a new idea that the company uses, do you think they should pay you every time that said company uses your idea? of course not.
When I buy record, new or used, their is no implied contract between me and the artist. I own the cd. I can do whatever I want with the cd, as long as I don't Physically harm anyone or thing with it.
If I own a car and decide to build ten exact copies of that car, with my own resources, does the car company have a right to those ten cars I made?
I am truly interested in your answers and wonder if you have read much about the destructive nature of Government enforced IP laws.

[DonnyL]

Intellectual property laws, like most things, can be good and bad.  You've pointed out some of the negative elements.

Let me just add these questions:

Re: Content -- When you buy a record, what are you paying for? a big round hunk of vinyl and a big square of cardboard?  What is that worth to you without the content?  

Re: Intergity -- And let's say this disc is SMILE.  Would you prefer to hear it as approved by Brian Wilson, prepared from the original masters, or a cheap copy I made on an old worn out disc cutter sourced from a low-bit rate mp3?  Who owns the rights to this cheap copy I've made, me or Brian Wilson? Who gets to decide how it is presented to the public?  You really believe the 'free market' should allow both copies (and countless others) to be sold and compete with one another?

Intellectual property has value in the marketplace, just as physical property (such as gold) has value.

As GuitarFool pointed out earlier, physical theft is somehow considered more legitimate than intellectual property theft ... even if the item in question is a book ... something which is somehow more valuable as a 'scarce' natural resource of wood, than for the content (word written) within the book, as your author of the book you linked to suggests.

[homeontherange]

I'm disappointed in Van Dyke. I thought he was more progressive than that.

Intellectual property laws is what protects state capitalism, big corporations and rich people in general. Without copyright laws, patents and trademarks there wouldn't be such a big gap between rich and poor people. Big corporations wouldn't even exist, because it would be impossible for them without the government's protection. In a free society, no one would get rich off an idea which would make it unnecessary to protect your idea. The important thing would be to be the first on the market with an awesome idea, before everyone else starts competing with the same awesome idea.

Artists and musicians have always been progressive about this. Art is something free. You can't own it, you can't touch it. It's meant to inspire people and create something inside you. Reach people's hearts and souls.

If you don't want someone else to copy or do whatever they want with your art, keep it to yourself. Because once your art or idea reaches my head, it's mine too. Because I have it inside of me.
Of course you can't walk around stealing others CDs and paintings and stuff, because that's something you can touch. You can't put the CD inside your head, but you can keep the notes and rhythm there.

 

[filledeplage]

I'm disappointed in Van Dyke. I thought he was more progressive than that.

Intellectual property laws is what protects state capitalism, big corporations and rich people in general. Without copyright laws, patents and trademarks there wouldn't be such a big gap between rich and poor people. Big corporations wouldn't even exist, because it would be impossible for them without the government's protection. In a free society, no one would get rich off an idea which would make it unnecessary to protect your idea. The important thing would be to be the first on the market with an awesome idea, before everyone else starts competing with the same awesome idea.

Artists and musicians have always been progressive about this. Art is something free. You can't own it, you can't touch it. It's meant to inspire people and create something inside you. Reach people's hearts and souls.

In the U.S. from 1787, the basis was, that the Congress shall have the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by Securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors, the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. " The times for protecting your work have been extended by statute, since then but the concept is still the same.  It is complex. It came from England and started with the Statute of Anne in 1556, with a complex background, not for this forum. US does not protect, for example, fashion, yet, other countries do. (I'll never figure that one out!)

At any rate, I was waiting for the elephant in the room to appear.  For me, it has nothing to do with being progressive.  Those lyrics have had people scratching their heads since 1967! It appears that the author was inspired by the "beat poets" of his era. They were inconsistent with most work which the public had become acclimated. I was shocked that the author was not jumping for joy, that some young artist, would be inspired by the work, which has been considered controversial by many, for over four deades!  

We aren't talking about the music composition. Mike Love (as well as other lyricists) made the music "available" in my view
to the listener, because it was not written with disjointed and complex and abstract imagery.  This is an observation NOT a criticism.  And, while no one owns the words, the issue is the "innovative arrangement" of them.  Music is so highly competitive, not unlike politics, that "getting your message out" in a catchy melody is what sticks in the mind of the listener.  Young kids can sing most of the Beach Boys stuff, because even young kids "get it!" The universality of appeal, is the hallmark, not the abstract, though lyrical advanced concepts, not within everyone's reach.

Concrete ideas that the common person "gets" and can sing in the shower make it  "available,"and the more intangible abstract ones, are more difficult.  It does not reflect on the intellectual quality, but the "availability" to understand and integrate it into your life. Music is often a place to de-stress, not write a doctoral thesis!

It may be beautiful and lyrical (yes, I think it is) but it was contentious and controversial.  And, because it was viewed as contentious...and difficult to understand and process intellectually, I was shocked to read that he would have an issue where someone maybe "got" or understood the work, and was inspired to take it "in a different direction."  It impressed me more as an instance where he was paying tribute to the original author, as being inspirational for new work.  

The news articles that I have seen, don't include a copy of the complaint, so, all reports I am regarding as "second hand." On balance, there may be issues that have not included in the report which are important.

But - not my call. Someone with all the facts and circumstances, will do that.  

[guitarfool2002]

A few observations:

1. For those bemoaning the fact that Van Dyke did this, that he was supposed to be more progressive, more open to the ideas of the evils of copyright law and how art should be free, does the man as the creator of those words have any say at all in how his words are used, who uses them, and who profits from them?

Assume a political group who Van Dyke or his fans would disagree with decides to create an advertising campaign around one of his songs or lyrics, and use them in a manner or in a context which he and his fans would find offensive. They would do this without permission, without context, and without compensation. How would this work if there were no legal means to call on to cease and desist? It seems to happen every political season. What if?

2. It is ridiculous to suggest abolishing copyright law, the notion of intellectual property, etc. entirely. Throwing the baby out with the bath water, in other words. Are there problems with the current system? Sure.  Has anyone arguing against these current copyright laws and intellectual property definitions offered ANYTHING as an alternative? What would be the alternative, or who would oversee and enforce the rights of a songwriter, lyricist, or poet if current definitions of copyright law and intellectual property were abolished?

I'm waiting for the answer. It's great to have a theory, but to see it progress into the real world, what would be the alternative? No protection at all?


On a personal note, as a musician it offends me to read theories that all art should somehow all be free for the taking.

Tell me, within that philosophy, how someone who works as a musician, songwriter, lyricist, arranger, etc. is supposed to make a living? Am I and my friends who do this for a living supposed to give everything away for free so people out there don't have to pay? How g*ddamned selfish can someone be to expect others to give their creations away for free, why, so they can enjoy the fruits of the labor and not have to pay for it? Seriously? Or is it more high-minded and philosophical than that, where the need to "pay the bills" and support a family is usurped by theories and philosophies about art being free for the masses or whatever it is.

Anyone who thinks that any kind of art, music, literature, etc should be given away for free, give me the names and addresses of the places where you work or where your family and friends work or run businesses and I and some friends who have earned money through music will stop by and demand the goods and services for free. That should even it out, in theory. Especially if someone runs or works in a really nice seafood restaurant, it will be nice to get something others have created which I enjoy and not pay anything for it, in the name of "free".

Maybe artists and musicians aren't supposed to make a living, instead working "day jobs" to pay the bills and devoting every free moment to creating art to be given away and enjoyed by those too cheap or too high-minded to pay. Free concerts, free gallery exhibits, free albums, free sculpture, free poetry readings, free books, free 'merch'...

If an artist or musician wants to give their art away, they have every right and I respect their decision. Someone who makes a living with it shouldn't be vilified or compelled to offer their creations and talent for free.

[filledeplage]

A few observations:

1. For those bemoaning the fact that Van Dyke did this, that he was supposed to be more progressive, more open to the ideas of the evils of copyright law and how art should be free, does the man as the creator of those words have any say at all in how his words are used, who uses them, and who profits from them?

Assume a political group who Van Dyke or his fans would disagree with decides to create an advertising campaign around one of his songs or lyrics, and use them in a manner or in a context which he and his fans would find offensive. They would do this without permission, without context, and without compensation. How would this work if there were no legal means to call on to cease and desist? It seems to happen every political season. What if?

2. It is ridiculous to suggest abolishing copyright law, the notion of intellectual property, etc. entirely. Throwing the baby out with the bath water, in other words. Are there problems with the current system? Sure.  Has anyone arguing against these current copyright laws and intellectual property definitions offered ANYTHING as an alternative? What would be the alternative, or who would oversee and enforce the rights of a songwriter, lyricist, or poet if current definitions of copyright law and intellectual property were abolished?

I'm waiting for the answer. It's great to have a theory, but to see it progress into the real world, what would be the alternative? No protection at all?


On a personal note, as a musician it offends me to read theories that all art should somehow all be free for the taking.

Tell me, within that philosophy, how someone who works as a musician, songwriter, lyricist, arranger, etc. is supposed to make a living? Am I and my friends who do this for a living supposed to give everything away for free so people out there don't have to pay? How goshdarned selfish can someone be to expect others to give their creations away for free, why, so they can enjoy the fruits of the labor and not have to pay for it? Seriously? Or is it more high-minded and philosophical than that, where the need to "pay the bills" and support a family is usurped by theories and philosophies about art being free for the masses or whatever it is.

Anyone who thinks that any kind of art, music, literature, etc should be given away for free, give me the names and addresses of the places where you work or where your family and friends work or run businesses and I and some friends who have earned money through music will stop by and demand the goods and services for free. That should even it out, in theory. Especially if someone runs or works in a really nice seafood restaurant, it will be nice to get something others have created which I enjoy and not pay anything for it, in the name of "free".

Maybe artists and musicians aren't supposed to make a living, instead working "day jobs" to pay the bills and devoting every free moment to creating art to be given away and enjoyed by those too cheap or too high-minded to pay. Free concerts, free gallery exhibits, free albums, free sculpture, free poetry readings, free books, free 'merch'...

If an artist or musician wants to give their art away, they have every right and I respect their decision. Someone who makes a living with it shouldn't be vilified or compelled to offer their creations and talent for free.

Guitar-no-fool - Hope I did not offend you; I took that class a few years ago, and was just trying to boil down some of what I learned. I mentioned the Cabbage Patch case, because I bought those dolls for my kids, and most of my classmates had the dolls. . And, because it discusses another factor to be considered in the decision making process. 

Publishing and Entertainment are usually taught apart from Intellectual Property.  It is that complex.   Jefferson incorporated a lot of pro-active protections into the US Constitution to protect artists, writers, musicians, scientists, and others for exactly the many good reasons you enumerated.  You should be able to exploit your own ideas and innovations and make a living.  Just because it's intangible, doesn't meant you don't own it!  This is a global forum, so others might have different standards and protections from their governments.

That said, what is "transformative" and "derivative" are complicated and that is what is in contention.  And, it is impossible to define, because it can be construed as vague.  It is not cut-and-dry. That would be easy. 

It would be, in my opinion, Wonderful  (pun intended) for the original author to sit down with the "fan artist" and see what the "artist" had in mind.  It looks more like an act of inspiration and good will as a fan. 

It might have a chilling effect" on artists to be fearful of taking an inspiration and interpreting via another art form. Is the viewer confused when they see the art?  Is there "substantial similarity?"  Or, say when you look at Monet, or Degas, is there a "school" or "style/technique" which is a "method" like Impressionism, with various interpretations?

Some poster ran the analysis above.  I tend to be more cautious and take a wait-and-see.  I was taught that "imitation (not copying) was a sincere form of flattery." 

When you look at the whole picture, you can't see the individual words.  Almost like synchronized swimmers.  You see the design from the aerial view, not the individual swimmers.  Or, the phrases which are at issue. 

It is unfortunate, given the long wait for the release of the Sessions, and all the anticipation which surrounded it. 

[Cam Mott]

I agree that Van DYke has the right but it is a dick move the way done imo.

[Ed Roach]

If you don't want someone else to copy or do whatever they want with your art, keep it to yourself. Because once your art or idea reaches my head, it's mine too. Because I have it inside of me.
Of course you can't walk around stealing others CDs and paintings and stuff, because that's something you can touch. You can't put the CD inside your head, but you can keep the notes and rhythm there.

 

I like the way you express this concept.  I remember being frustrated when this here internet thing started taking off, and I started seeing photographs and films of mine copied and re-edited into other peoples work.  I quickly realized that, as long as it was for the purpose of another persons artistic expression, and wasn't going to reap them financial rewards, that I should consider it a compliment; (although it is still frustrating not being credited for it!  However, even directors that license my work prefer not to give my images a screen credit, thus blurring the lines of who originally created the work.  Try to distinguish whose work is who from 20 different 'archival' credits in the end credit roll...)
I have accepted, however, that once an image is 'out there', it's value can & often is diluted - ergo the reason why some of my best work from those halcyon days of the past has yet to be seen...
However, I've also been witness to some extremely talented people, (Sly Stone immediately comes to mind), whose paranoia has caused them to 'keep it to themselves'.  So it's a double-edged sword to deprive the world of worthwhile art.

[Ron]

Van Dyke's right to sue, and so was Mike Love in most instances. 

[Iron Horse-Apples]

Artists and musicians have always been progressive about this. Art is something free. You can't own it, you can't touch it. It's meant to inspire people and create something inside you. Reach people's hearts and souls.

Absolutely. But copyright also protects your right to be identified as the creator of that work. I can't think of many artists or musicians who wouldn't be extremely put out if someone else took the credit for their work, regardless of how progressive they are.

[b00ts]

LOL. IP is an unnecessary evil, a residual of the middle ages from which free market societies emerged, a holdover
of the days when governments and royalty granted monopolies to favored courtiers. VDP does not own those words any more than I 'own' the words you are reading. Read http://mises.org/resources/3582/Against-Intellectual-Property if you have an interest in IP (an interest that isn't predatory).

A discussion/debate on this seems necessary, but hopefully staying clear of sarcasm, sniping, attacks, etc...

The thoughts about VDP "owning" or "not owning" those words and lyrics struck a nerve. Maybe some of the published authors and songwriters on this board can chime in both pro and con. But I feel that the notion of ownership over something you create - whether it be music or words - is a rather basic concept worth protecting, especially for the "creator". If upon the completion of that work, defined as "Intellectual Property", the work no longer has an owner but is instead somehow floating in limbo between being "ours for the taking" and "free", doesn't it create a scenario which borders on anarchy? If Van Dyke does not own those words, then can anyone feel free to take them and use for their own purposes? Or misuse the words? Or change the words? That doesn't even mention the legality of profiting from those words.

Mr. Kinsella is a learned man, with challenging theories. However, breaking it down to a basic question, what does he do to earn money? What is his product, or what does he produce? How does he draw a paycheck, and make a living?

Kinsella is paid for his thoughts, his ideas, and the writings and lectures which people seek out when they either see him in person or read his words. He is an economist, legal scholar, and also a theoretician of sorts. Therefore, the product which he is paid to "produce" is mostly his thoughts and his words. He doesn't necessarily make anything concrete to sell or buy, his words and ideas are his product. He also signs his writings with his name, suggesting a basic level of claiming ownwership over what others are about to read or see.

Is the concept of a thinker and scholar like Kinsella "owning" his words that different from a lyricist like Van Dyke Parks "owning" his words? Kinsella is paid to speak and to write, expressing his thoughts and theories...should anyone then have a legal or even intellectual claim on those words and be able to take them away from Kinsella?

Well, Kinsella of course is getting paid, but he is not using the force of the Government to make sure he gets paid. In other words, the desire to have the state use force to enable your copyright claim to be 'protected' is the objection, not that a person shouldn't be paid for his work.
BTW, its always hilarious when folks who for sure own music that they didn't pay the artist for still fall for the old state-monopoly line about IP.

It might work in theory or on paper, but in the real world, what else would be in place to make someone pay for anything? Let's say Kinsella writes, edits, designs, prints, and distributes his own book, free of any notion of copyright or any other law enforcing anything in the process. Taking the theory to an ultimate extreme, if he himself sets up a table in the middle of a parking lot somewhere, and has stacks of his books for sale at 25 dollars per copy, what would stop me from going to his table, grabbing a copy, and saying "I'm taking this and I'm giving you 5 dollars." What recourse would he have against me if not the legality of me taking his book and in a true free-market system, giving him what I (the market) feels the product (Kinsella's words in the book) is worth?

And what force could he use if not the legal system against me, the consumer, if I undercut his price by forcing him to take what I want to pay versus what he wants to pay? And if he refuses my offer, what force could he then call on if I were to grab his book and run away without paying anything? How different at a basic level is the enforcement of a copyright law from the enforcement of a law against outright theft of physical property, or should they be different at all?

If the theory relies on human nature and goodwill (i.e. the notion of 'doing what is right') to ensure an artist gets paid, it's going to fall short. Again, not saying the current system is flawless or even efficient or fair, but how far do we go with some of the alternatives?

Your analogy falls short, good sir. You are conflating the idea of intellectual property with physical property. You would still be stealing a book, as in the physical object, even if the IP inside the book was public domain.
 
For instance, there are many companies that specialize in distributing public domain films and TV shows (likethe Three Stooges) on DVD. Just because that material is public domain does not mean you can steal those DVDs from the dollar bin in your local Rite-Aid.

Unfortunately, copyright is way out of control in the USA and there seems to be a similar climate much of the world over, with the ACTA treaty ratified, et. cetera. Major media cartels are spending a lot of money on laws and regulations that will not amount to much in the end; people will always copy material. If the media companies invested all that political bribe money in a superior content distribution system with reasonable prices, they would be ensuring their future in a more sustainable and tangible way, with the bonus of not generating additional consumer enmity. As it is, the cartels are shoveling barrels of money at the US house and senate for very little long-term gain.

Moreover, with the constant copyright extensions and the recent Supreme Court decision that says public domain material can be re-copyrighted, we are headed further down the road to information lockdown. What if I created derivative wrks using public domain material? Do the people who re-coyrighted the material now own my derivative work? All of this has a stifling effect after a while.

Like others here, I own my own songs and masters and I like being able to have control over them... But control realistically only lasts until the moment you put the product out there. Then, it belongs to the world, and can be copied an unlimited amount of times - it takes on a life of its own. Of course, I hope nobody steals any of my songs, and would pursue them if they did, but I am also constantly writing. That is the key - continually generating new, compelling content, which the film and music industry are able but unwilling to do, preferring to play it safe with middle-of-the-road BS, remakes and reboots.

All the DRM and laws in the world can't prevent this proliferation. It is just natural. Thus the key difference between the concept of intellectual property and real property - real property belongs to one person at a time, and to acquire it, one must necessarily deprive the person who owns it.

The issues of copyright and personal use were argued in the cases involving home taping, most prominent in the Sony Betamax case where the recording and film industry were concerned about giving the home consumer the ability to, as you said, make infinite copies of something broadcast on TV or on the radio, in their opinion creating a market where less physical copies were actually purchased and more "free" material was made available. This case can be read about in many sources, the exact details aren't worth posting a long screed here, but the arguments in that case are worth reading and some continue to reappear in cases like Napster and others.

Needless to say, the VCR survived, the cassette deck survived, and the recordable CDR survived. There was not a stoppage nor extensive licensing or fees/taxes applied to the blank media or the machines when a consumer bought them.

I believe you misunderstood my analogy: We expect a government agency (the police) and a legal body (the court system) to step in if someone were to "steal" a physical copy of that hypothetical book. Yet we don't think other branches within that same system should step in if someone were to steal the "intellectual property" contained in that same book?

I'd like to pose a hypothetical situation, and I'm really interested to hear what the responses may be.

Assume the notion of "intellectual property" in the context of copyright and ownership were to be dismissed, taking it as far as Kinsella's theories may want to take it.

Say you were to write a novel, as a hobby from your love of writing, and you were to make rough copies for a handful of friends and family...as a gift, not for sale or general publication. What if one of those friends were to take that copy, claim it as his or her own work, and pass it to a bigger entity who would then go on to publish it. It becomes a massive success, generating wealth and profit, yet you know you wrote it from the original idea to the finished novel.

If there is no definable and enforceable concept of "intellectual property" in the court system (the government), what options do you then have as the author who had his work stolen? What would be in place to deal with a situation like this if the legal system no longer recognizes intellectual property rights, claimed by the creator of that work?

Personally, I think that selling someone else's work is more akin to actual theft,  depriving that person/entity of funds that rightfully belong to them.

I am not against the idea of IP overall; I just think that when it comes to sharing and fair use, there should be more of a reasonable attitude on the part of these trade groups. They are short-sighted and they don't care how many consumers they piss off. The consumers, however, now own the means of reproduction, and no amount of laws, treaties, or regulations will fix that.

[guitarfool2002]

I don't know if ironic is the right word, but it's odd that there are those posting theories about art being free in discussions against intellectual property and copyright law, yet I think the big reason why this particular artist got involved in a legal dust-up with Van Dyke was because he was selling his art!   If this guy had offered it for free as an online wallpaper or something, or had done the work as a fan tribute and not hung the canvases in a gallery for sale to the public, maybe it wouldn't have been an issue.

[DonnyL]

I mean, what if Van Dyke simply doesn't like the guy's art and doesn't wish to be so closely associated with it?

Of course when you put something out there, it's up for grabs and people are going to do what they want with it.  But there's a point when inspiration becomes a derivative work.

If the guy had released a cover version of Smile, even selling copies of it, he probably would have been ignored. 

[filledeplage]

If you don't want someone else to copy or do whatever they want with your art, keep it to yourself. Because once your art or idea reaches my head, it's mine too. Because I have it inside of me.
Of course you can't walk around stealing others CDs and paintings and stuff, because that's something you can touch. You can't put the CD inside your head, but you can keep the notes and rhythm there.

 

I like the way you express this concept.  I remember being frustrated when this here internet thing started taking off, and I started seeing photographs and films of mine copied and re-edited into other peoples work.  I quickly realized that, as long as it was for the purpose of another persons artistic expression, and wasn't going to reap them financial rewards, that I should consider it a compliment; (although it is still frustrating not being credited for it!  However, even directors that license my work prefer not to give my images a screen credit, thus blurring the lines of who originally created the work.  Try to distinguish whose work is who from 20 different 'archival' credits in the end credit roll...)
I have accepted, however, that once an image is 'out there', it's value can & often is diluted - ergo the reason why some of my best work from those halcyon days of the past has yet to be seen...
However, I've also been witness to some extremely talented people, (Sly Stone immediately comes to mind), whose paranoia has caused them to 'keep it to themselves'.  So it's a double-edged sword to deprive the world of worthwhile art.

Ed - Your post made me think of the "Fairey" Matter with the photograph of President Obama taken from a newspaper, being transformed into a sort of "rogue" pop art style (my term)icon (unofficial) for the campaign. The "HOPE" poster.

It was not used officially by the campaign because there were copyright issues. And, I had not been thinking so much of photography but more of how the abstract (invisible) concepts were transformed into a visual (visible) medium.  The story is interesting and the NY Times still has a line of articles on the matter, which eventually was "settled" rather than having a hard copy court decision as a precedent for court guiding principles going forward.  

it reminded me of those mail away art/photo companies, where you could send a photo, even back to the 1960's, to a company, which was black and white, and for a fee, they would make it look like a portrait, by some process which is foreign to me.  But in the Fairey matter, there was a change, not in the basic image outline, but, with the use of color and shading, "dramatized." It sort of "took on a life of its' own." This guy was actually arrested, at one point, I think for posting them where they didn't belong, by "local regulation" violation.

But, Obama did get elected and it did become an icon of sorts.  One of the wire services, also was claiming ownership, rather than the photographer who seemed to claim "independent contractor" status, getting the wire service out of the equation.  The line of NT Times articles can help put that story together for those who aren't familiar with the story.

So, it seemed to end up being, the artist and the photographer, who ironed out an agreement.  The  President liked the image, and it seemed so did the photographer, reportedly, in the end, because it gave him publicity, which was enhancing, as to him, and, because it was "diplomatically" ironed out, the story seemed to have a happy ending. ($)

What impressed me, going back to the Cabbage Patch v. Garbage Pail issue, was the Court considered the work "devalued" and taste is "subjective" and the concept of "offensive" can change over time.  The Stanford website on Fair Use considered it a "Fifth Factor."

It does raise some important questions, about original work being re-cycled, into another medium, which (Fairey) impressed me, as a 1960's technique or "school" rather than transforming what I would characterize, maybe poorly, as "sonority" of the language, into visual.  

It will be interesting. And, thank you, Ed, for sharing so much of your work, and reflections over time about the Boys; I grew up with their music and it has been great to see them outlast many of our bands, and still enjoy bringing their music to the people.  You are part of the telling of their story.  Thanks!  

[grillo]

I'm disappointed in Van Dyke. I thought he was more progressive than that.

Intellectual property laws is what protects state capitalism, big corporations and rich people in general. Without copyright laws, patents and trademarks there wouldn't be such a big gap between rich and poor people. Big corporations wouldn't even exist, because it would be impossible for them without the government's protection. In a free society, no one would get rich off an idea which would make it unnecessary to protect your idea. The important thing would be to be the first on the market with an awesome idea, before everyone else starts competing with the same awesome idea.

Artists and musicians have always been progressive about this. Art is something free. You can't own it, you can't touch it. It's meant to inspire people and create something inside you. Reach people's hearts and souls.

If you don't want someone else to copy or do whatever they want with your art, keep it to yourself. Because once your art or idea reaches my head, it's mine too. Because I have it inside of me.
Of course you can't walk around stealing others CDs and paintings and stuff, because that's something you can touch. You can't put the CD inside your head, but you can keep the notes and rhythm there.

 

But you've got it backwards, or sideways, maybe. Progressives LOVE the state and constantly beg their rulers...er, I mean favorite politicians, for more and more laws that 'protect the poor' which, when any state (meaning government) becomes involved always does the exact opposite (see the Great Society). Of course conservatives also love the state for its ability to make slaughter a laudible job), so maybe its time the whole go-to-the-government-to-force-your-will-upon-others thing is put to rest. The lesson is if you use force (definition of all governments ever) to get your way  it will never be a fair transaction. Make something I value and I will pay you for it. That's how everything else works (grocery store, clothing, etc.). If you make crap 'art' that I listen to on the internet or a friend gives to me and I can't stand it, don't expect any cash. All of these worst-case-scenarios about one's amazing art being stolen by the big corporation (which can only exist because of the state) are laughable. To me, anyway...

[homeontherange]

But you've got it backwards, or sideways, maybe. Progressives LOVE the state and constantly beg their rulers...er, I mean favorite politicians, for more and more laws that 'protect the poor' which, when any state (meaning government) becomes involved always does the exact opposite (see the Great Society). Of course conservatives also love the state for its ability to make slaughter a laudible job), so maybe its time the whole go-to-the-government-to-force-your-will-upon-others thing is put to rest. The lesson is if you use force (definition of all governments ever) to get your way  it will never be a fair transaction. Make something I value and I will pay you for it. That's how everything else works (grocery store, clothing, etc.). If you make crap 'art' that I listen to on the internet or a friend gives to me and I can't stand it, don't expect any cash. All of these worst-case-scenarios about one's amazing art being stolen by the big corporation (which can only exist because of the state) are laughable. To me, anyway...

I know that americans like to flip it around and say that anti-authoritarianism is conservative and the opposite is progressivism (or liberalism), but that's simply because the USA was founded on extremely progressive ideals, so being conservative has become being liberal.
I don't see why I should subscribe to that idea though. My ideology is called socialism and is basically about reforming the government to the point where it doesn't exist anymore. Decentralizing, removing laws and giving power to the people is what's going to make this world free and equal, and that's what socialism and progressivism traditionally is about.

[filledeplage]

But you've got it backwards, or sideways, maybe. Progressives LOVE the state and constantly beg their rulers...er, I mean favorite politicians, for more and more laws that 'protect the poor' which, when any state (meaning government) becomes involved always does the exact opposite (see the Great Society). Of course conservatives also love the state for its ability to make slaughter a laudible job), so maybe its time the whole go-to-the-government-to-force-your-will-upon-others thing is put to rest. The lesson is if you use force (definition of all governments ever) to get your way  it will never be a fair transaction. Make something I value and I will pay you for it. That's how everything else works (grocery store, clothing, etc.). If you make crap 'art' that I listen to on the internet or a friend gives to me and I can't stand it, don't expect any cash. All of these worst-case-scenarios about one's amazing art being stolen by the big corporation (which can only exist because of the state) are laughable. To me, anyway...

I know that americans like to flip it around and say that anti-authoritarianism is conservative and the opposite is progressivism (or liberalism), but that's simply because the USA was founded on extremely progressive ideals, so being conservative has become being liberal.
I don't see why I should subscribe to that idea though. My ideology is called socialism and is basically about reforming the government to the point where it doesn't exist anymore. Decentralizing, removing laws and giving power to the people is what's going to make this world free and equal, and that's what socialism and progressivism traditionally is about.

It is too broad a brush. Much of US law comes from Europe.  Common law concepts are mostly from England.  Early copyright in England, was shaped by mercantile interests to get monopoly control. Later, the guilds shaped patent and trademark law. 

When the US Consititution was drafted, largely by Jefferson, the rights were vested in the "individual" and not the government.  Now, a company can get "work for hire" - prepared within the scope of employment...or commissioned.  The company, "generally,"owns the work. 

Jefferson strove to protect the artists, writers, musicians and scientists.  No one wants to pay for anything; people want it all free. Some stuff gets out under "education" or "news." If someone's work is out there for free, it is a disincentive to create.  Everyone pays at the grocery store, and gas station, but people don't expect to pay for the work of an artist, writer or musician. 

The Internet has created an imbalance, which is now a challenge, with less control of electronic sources, for transmission of owned work to be compensated.  I'm not talking about amateur stuff.  But splitting up a copyrighted DVD, and uploading it.  There have to be boundaries.  JMHO

[Bicyclerider]

Well, something tells me VDP wasn't adequately compensated in the whole TSS release--hence, his silence on it, and his fairly bitter-sounding comment on Saturday (at Freakbeat) that TSS was "redundant

One wishes the record companies would just do the right thing and pay everybody what they rightfully deserve for their work. But I know how it goes.

Can you elaborate on what Van said, or what it was in response to?  I have to think, based solely on that brief remark, that he feels BWPS was the definitive version of the Smile music and therefor the release of the sessions is redundant?  But I would also think Van would be happy about Frank's artwork finally seeing publication and his being compensated appropriately.  As for Van, he will be paid as is always the case for singwriters by the songwriting royalties which are nothing to sneeze at ( just ask Mike Love).

[grillo]

But you've got it backwards, or sideways, maybe. Progressives LOVE the state and constantly beg their rulers...er, I mean favorite politicians, for more and more laws that 'protect the poor' which, when any state (meaning government) becomes involved always does the exact opposite (see the Great Society). Of course conservatives also love the state for its ability to make slaughter a laudible job), so maybe its time the whole go-to-the-government-to-force-your-will-upon-others thing is put to rest. The lesson is if you use force (definition of all governments ever) to get your way  it will never be a fair transaction. Make something I value and I will pay you for it. That's how everything else works (grocery store, clothing, etc.). If you make crap 'art' that I listen to on the internet or a friend gives to me and I can't stand it, don't expect any cash. All of these worst-case-scenarios about one's amazing art being stolen by the big corporation (which can only exist because of the state) are laughable. To me, anyway...

I know that americans like to flip it around and say that anti-authoritarianism is conservative and the opposite is progressivism (or liberalism), but that's simply because the USA was founded on extremely progressive ideals, so being conservative has become being liberal.
I don't see why I should subscribe to that idea though. My ideology is called socialism and is basically about reforming the government to the point where it doesn't exist anymore. Decentralizing, removing laws and giving power to the people is what's going to make this world free and equal, and that's what socialism and progressivism traditionally is about.

Socialism IS CENTRALIZED PLANNING, which IS THE GOVERNMENT. Where has socialism made the state smaller?
How can forced wealth transfers make people free? Like Monty Python said, the violence is inherent in the state.
 Also, I'm not too keen on your 'you americans" statist crap. My parents f***ed here, that's all that happened. I am an individual who happens to live on the land mass who's arbitrary borders are enforced by the violence of the autoritarian sociopaths who rule from Washington (but who are part of a worldwide phenomenon) .
I'm sure the tens of millions who have died in the last century due to the wonders of socialism might argue with you about what 'socialism is traditionally about'.

[Dr. Tim]

What's that got to do with the price of rice, RIGHT?  And why is that, "WOE IS US"??!!
                     
  - Paddy Chayefsky, "Network"

[TheManchesterMan]

I don't know if ironic is the right word, but it's odd that there are those posting theories about art being free in discussions against intellectual property and copyright law, yet I think the big reason why this particular artist got involved in a legal dust-up with Van Dyke was because he was selling his art!   If this guy had offered it for free as an online wallpaper or something, or had done the work as a fan tribute and not hung the canvases in a gallery for sale to the public, maybe it wouldn't have been an issue.

It definately would not have been an issue. The artist uses the term "inspired by", yet in actuality, they are named after Van Dyke Parks' works and feature his words prominently. Had they not done so, would he have got his work in a gallery where they are on sale for thousands of dollars? I don't believe so. It's cheap, lazy "art" that is using a canvas and the painter's "artistic" pretentions as a means of profiting from someone elses hard work. If I made a short film featuring a several shots of flames and soundtracked it with the BBs 'Fire' and called it 'Fire' - then offered it for sale, does anyone think that is classed as fair use?

[The Heartical Don]

I am certain that Van Dyke Parks will handle the issue with dignity and honesty, and in a courteous manner. That is his very nature.

I don't have any insight into the legal issues involved. But, had I been an author or lyricist, I would certainly not like it to see my own texts, or parts thereof, suddenly appearing at an exhibition, and having been put up there with commercial intentions. Regardless of the artistic quality, I must add. I would have been wanted to be informed beforehand, at least.

What is very important to note here, and what I haven't seen yet in this thread: Van Dyke Parks has a lifelong and faithful habit of making absolutely sure that royalties and other forms of remuneration related to copyrights are paid in full to the people he worked and works with, and the artists whose works he performs on record and in a live setting. That is not as common a practice as many people think. Should he owe you just one dime for something you created 50 years ago, he would pay you that dime.

He is not a greedy or a jealous man. He's not in his business to get rich. He's the definition of a true artist.

I think he's sensitive in the right way, here. IIRC he once advised potential customers to stay away of the Edsel re-releases of his classic first three albums - precisely because that company hadn't treated him properly with regard to royalties. That is a justified protection of your own interests, in my book.