2011-06-24
post/6878500532
quote 22:30:00
“ Should Jay have the right to claim the derived image isn’t fair use and ask for a cease and desist? Yes. He’s not, as many are saying, a dick for his opinion. Should Andy have the ability to defend his stance that it is fair use. Of course. Should it take the kind of money that only either corporations or the very rich can easily afford to spend in order to get a judge’s ruling and find out? Definitely not. That’s the real problem here. ”
James Duncan Davidson writing about The Maisel vs Baio Incident.
I strongly agree with this. Currently the US (and, largely, the UK) ration access to the law on the ability of both the (sometimes prospective) litigant and defender to pay, rather than the merits of the case.
Another piece (also via John Gruber) mentions that the Sheppard Fairey vs AP case, on the Obama Hope poster, would have made great case law. Instead, that case ended with an out of court settlement. Shame.
(Would it be bad here to note that there’s another public service which has more demand than access- health care? Of course, the UK largely rations that through need, via the NHS, whereas in the US is dependent on employment, age, and to a nontrivial extent, money.)
