"In my opinion, the album art was not particularly more or less transformative than the music on the album. If the intent was commercial sale, and the music was licensed to be above board, as mentioned, the album art probably should have been treated the same way, right? I'm not saying the photographer's not being a douche, or that the sums asked for weren't inappropriate, or anything of that regard, I'm just saying, if you look at the album as comprised of two elements - the music, and the cover - the first was licensed for commercial sale, and the second was not, so if you make a fair use argument for the cover... why not the music as well? If you acknowledge that the music needed to be licensed in the first place, and hence did NOT fall under fair use, it seems odd to make the opposite argument for the album art
. That's my only real point, but I feel it's worth making, because it seems like music is often treated very differently (MORE scrutiny & copyright concern) than images. My favorite example that hits close to home is video game fan art vs. video game fan mixes. Peeps been submitting drawings of Mario, Zelda, etc. to EGM before the Internet took over, but the second mixes became a thing, everyone was VERY concerned w/ copyright issues.
Again, no hate. We talk about fair use a lot here, it's relevant to us, and I'm pretty sure all of us read this article as a damn unfortunate thing happening to a good person. It's just... that doesn't make him right about the law, or fair use, and I just thought the inconsistency between the music being licensed and the image not was worth mentioning."