Suppose, for example, that making prints with Hiroshige’s woodblocks takes technical skill, but not creativity: the resulting copies are routine. [cite to Bridgeman v. Corel]. Hiroshige may invoke his core right to stop the printer from disseminating such mechanically produced copies, which represent only Hiroshige’s “own” creations. But we can tell Hiroshige’s prints and Van Gogh’s studies apart at a glance: while copying the earlier artist’s creation, the later artist has woven in substance that could not have been routinely generated. From one’s prints to the other’s studies, composition goes from static to dynamic, coloration from muted to emphatic, and emotional tone *181 changes altogether. Under our second principle, Hiroshige may not stop Van Gogh from disseminating the later studies, which represent Van Gogh’s “own” creations. [FN70] Creators should rather be left free to contribute to our culture as they rework it.

55 J. Copyright Soc’y U.S.A. 165

http://thru-you.com/

So, it would be nice of anyone who uses the the new phrases I’ve coined “Senes A Fairey,” and “Fairey Use” to properly attribute them to me. After all, it is my creative work to which I would like to claim intellectual property rights. And you all can assign your own meaning to my creations and repeat them a few hundred thousand times elsewhere at your own expense as part of your creative works to make them into something. But remember to attribute them to me when they make their way into the dictionary.

Meanwhile, my creativity is spent, so I’ll sit back, relax, and just wait for someone to make something of my creations…

I’ll let you all decide what it means, but remember it is my IP and you must attribute it to me when you use it.

As an antidote to this, I recently had first-hand experience with how this sort of issue is handled correctly – I launched TEDify, modest project paying tribute to the TED conference by remixing sound clips from different TED talks to form audiovisual collages that convey certain messages. This, of course, violates TED’s copyright – of their logo, of the audio and video material, of their entire organization. BUT, the team at TED was extremely supportive of this totally user-generated derivative work, they worked with me to work out the details and actually helped me promote the project.

TED, of course, is an exemplar of intellect and cultural aptitude. So I wasn’t surprised. I just wish we’d see this sort of context-informed approach on a larger scale, rather than the narrow and limited clinging to antiquated and idiotic laws that we see in the Shepard Fairey / AP case.