It's an interesting conundrum that the artist is forced to settle a lawsuit involving a derivative of a photograph from which he made (presumably) little or no money. Meanwhile, he can use both the photograph and the derivative in a medium that generates ad revenue with no fears of copyright law.
In the first case, he created something interesting, and his arguments for the symbolism of his piece and the entire project were compelling. Yet this is reasonably likely to not be considered fair use. In the second case, he blatantly displays the creative work and offers commentary on the issue, and profiting here is perfectly fine. This seems somewhat backward to me, so I think th0ma5's comment is interesting.
Step 1. Challenge fair use Step... Step 2. Be challenged back .... Step 2a, keep covering the fight ... Step 3. Profit. I think Boing Boing has or still does this. I don't see Tech Crunch really doing this, they're more just like Fox in the matter and blurring the lines of the "challenge" as trying to assert opinion as fact, and they bemoaning that when challenged.
I don't think my day is complete without seeing links from him, but I mean, this same thing happened with Danger Mouse, and that was really testing fair use, and I don't think was even trying to, but this was another copyright issue promoted by his site.
So, I mean, I'm not commenting on the substance of the specific settlement, I'm talking about the whole issue the post is describing as to what went on. He promoted a derived work, often does, it was challenged, but didn't fight it but settled, and yes that's an issue that should concern us all because that's the current fight over copyright.
Part of that fight includes was the value of the creative work directly the result of the success of the original material, without any value added or interpretation of new art, and I would say sure. I agree with the fight, and I agree that works like this should be cool to do.
But you put your shoes on of the rights holder of the original, and I think it is very clear that a guy makes money, with essentially low-res photo of my client's property.
Now, that's completely ignorant of the 8-bit technology social history hat tip, I know, but I guess I don't know how clearer to put it that I'm not coming out of left field with trying to provide some kind of subtle issue around the subject that I don't read very much about... has challenging fair use for community ideals become just another method of capitalization? Is that why the lawyers thought that their claims would be honored in court? Because that's the only thing I could barely think could be an issue for anyone.
Anyway... was hoping to see at least some kind of critical analysis. Perhaps it is forth coming by someone who can articulate maybe what I'm after better. Andy rocks, tho, for sure.
There's a flow of money around every Tech Crunch article that is posted here, yet I don't see the same comments.