He probably is a di*k, but not cause he defends his artwork or made good investments.

In response to John Gruber of daring fireball’s recent coverage of Jay Maisel vs Andy Baio.
disclaimer: i do not write, know correct grammar or proof reed, its likely rough…
John,

I have to disagree with your take on Jay Maisel. Based on what I’ve seen about him on the web, it could be very possible that he is a dick, even a large dick however I don’t think the photograph lawsuit or the mansion would necessarily confirm either of those beliefs. First and foremost, I’m not a copyright lawyer, I have no knowledge of fair use or the DMCA but I do believe that using someone’s work without their permission during the term of their ownership should carry with it the potential cost of damages the rightful owner deems appropriate at a later time. An artist, although in theory should have intentions solely based around making great art, needs to protect him/herself from having his creations taken without compensation. It isn’t a selfish ambition, simply a fact that in order for us artists(I was signed to Warner Bros Records for 7 years and EMI for 8 years) to create more artist we need to have the resources in which to do so (namely money in exchange for your enjoying our creations). So, I think your friend who took his photograph and used it on his album should have known that the appropriate coarse of action would have been to first ask permission directly from the photographer, offer compensation, and if no response was gotten simply move on. Certainly using the original image in his video was outside the gray area of a pixelated art knockoff (and although I love space invader you can’t use street artists as an example really anything since they typically engage in breaking more laws than Dillinger while making their statements). 

Now lets just quickly move onto this “mansion” of his. I skimmed the article about his fortuitous real estate venture and if I missed something please use it as an opportunity to blast me and dispel my entire argument here but it see***ike he bought the property fair and square 30 years ago at the market value, has lived in it ever since, paid for improvements and is now sitting on top of a gold mine that he rightfully owns and deserves. Though his real estate holdings are wonderful they should not be used as an argument as to why he shouldn’t defend his artwork. After all it is likely his art that got him in that building in the first place, and you can’t compromise values/beliefs and rules just because someone is rich. The principals that Jay was defending go far beyond just his artwork and I don’t like undermining people fighting for compensation with the typical “well he’s a ****ing rich asshole”.
Your friend could have gotten a different image or if exercising his artistry(or his friend who he hired) was that important why didn’t he just create a original piece?
those of you who read this please do take the time so support John’s wonderful site Andy’s wonderful site ( i love kickstarter) and also Jay’s wonderful work
-Evan

我赶时间出门= =我就不翻了......

占楼 慢慢看

你妈喊你回来翻译

我晕了……等翻译

没文化、真可怕

看到满目英文……我就不想看了= =