CRYPTOART REMIX RULES

Commentary

At Pixeos we verify/ pre-screen all artworks, blockchain accounts and artists, making yes/no decisions everyday. What Collin proposes is fairly accurate. “Transformation” and “fair use” standards are poorly-defined, and thus difficult to use. His suggestion to import the Patent Law “obviousness” standard to cryptoart is truly insightful. Without revealing any of Pixeos’ ‘secret sauce’ (yet), one step in our analysis of new cryptoart is: “Is it Obvious?” If the new piece is simply a Photomoshed or pixelated version of the original, Pixeos will most likely choose not to publish this kind of work. If the new work simply pulls a loop out of an existing video with nothing more, same result. Remixes are tricky business, but in my experience, they CAN add substantial value to a gallery’s collection, if chosen wisely and the sources thoroughly explained in the artwork metadata. At Pixeos, we also add an additional layer: if the original artist objects, we remove the remix. Thus Collin’s admonition to contact the original artist before publishing is indeed a good idea. To consult with the remixed artist adds another layer of seriousness and diligence to the process of creating derivative works. We believe it’s a must. If the remixed artist demands the remix to be removed, it’s ethical to do it in our opinion.

— Fred Nogueira (@ FredNogueira on Twitter), Pixeos founder and C.E.O.

INTRODUCTION

On a hot Miami night in 1989, 2 Live Crew’s manager had bad news: they needed a license to Roy Orbison’s…