Oh certainly, Tim was definitely, unequivocally saying that he suspected copying.
And they make their case in the comments that they suspect this because the details between the two cars are highly coincidental for such specific elements as disconnected front wheel arches, which is certainly a very unique design touch.
I also think that Tim and Mike were annoyed in the Disney article because a number of commenters latched onto the copying element and whether there was any veracity to that argument while missing the point with which they were actually trying to attack Disney.
I went back and re-read the article to make sure I got everything right.
Dark Helmet, Tim, did say that he suspected copying. I used the term "illegal" since he was talking about law suits and Disney suing itself, and of generally legal things.
He then said "the issue is not that Disney used a real life car as inspiration," indicating that he specifically thinks that there is nothing legally amiss with what Disney did.
I also do not think that different standards are being used. Essentially, he's using the metric of "is the aspect of the work being analyzed of a unique enough character that the likelihood of it having arisen from external elements very low?" If yes, then inspiration or copying has likely occurred.
This post is arguing that the above mentioned examples do not pass this test. And even if they did, the previous article is arguing "so what?" I think that the logic between them, while being belligerent and derisive, is consistent.
It's NOT enough to hang Disney. The article wasn't making that argument. It was highly derisive of Disney specifically because Disney has been so litigious in the past.
Moreover, I don't see this as a "near cloning" whatsoever. The styles are similar and the wording is similar, but that means nothing.
Go to any of the I Can Haz Cheezburger websites. Phrases such as "It's crazy" explode into memespace very quickly and organically. These two artists may have never come in contact at all.
Finally, the "rough doodle" look has been popular and around for a LONG time. I remember posters with similar art on them back in elementary school, which would have been the early 1990's.
Are the two works similar, yes, but they may not be connected at all. Instead, the inspiration for both works sprang from the same external systems of society and the internet. Whether it's a copy, inspiration, or anything doesn't matter. If it's possible and even likely that multiple people would have had similar ideas, then we can't make accusations.
I think that while the article does call it copying, it makes a strong distinction: Disney did nothing illegal in the act.
On your third point, from reading the comments and the article, I gleaned that the author's point is that the similarities between the cars are of design elements that can have wildly different interpretations; for example, the disconnected front wheel arches. This is a very unique design direction.
On a side note, while the wheel arches are rather puzzling, I'm still not sold on the cartoon car having been inspired by the real car.
In the above cases, anyone who's ever spent time on websites dedicated to internet memes knows that phrases like "It's Crazy," are literally everywhere. Moreover, rough doodles are also everywhere. It's simply a style. A VERY popular one. There is a distinct possibility that the two artists have never even seen each other's work.
I am also a photographer, and my sister just graduated from photography school. We know our stuff. The two pictures are done in similar styles, but that means nothing. Barring Photoshop editing, there are only so many styles in which one can photograph. At a recent gallery show, there were many photographs that were lit and post-processed in a similar way.
Just to prove this, I went to Dreamstime and iStockphoto and looked up stock photographs of "Boy crying."
I found DOZENS of photos by dozens of photographers selling boys on blue backgrounds, in similar poses, a few even had the same high-contrast effect applied. But, again, coming from a photography background, that effect can be applied to any photograph in a few minutes with Photoshop. It simply makes the photo "punch" a little more.
"If you could agree that the pixel art only exists because of the photograph, you would already be 50% of the way to actually understanding something."
I find this statement shocking. How in the world can you possibly see this as the primary litmus test of whether art is transformative or not?
All art is inspired by something. Hell, all of HISTORY is inspired by something else. Didn't you ever watch "Connections?"
The examples of great works that would have never existed if not for a previous work is limitless. Dire Straights "Money For Nothing" wouldn't have existed if not for Billy Gibbons' guitar work. Most cars wouldn't look as they do if not for earlier cars. Hello, Hyundai!
All art is directly inspired by something previously. No work exists in a vacuum.
Not "yay" in that I'm glad that they're losing money.
"Yay" in that I feel vindicated. I HATE Pandora and could never believe that it was somehow a big deal. Add to that my confusion over how a service like this could ever make money, and how the hell this service could be possible what with the music industry being helmed by complete retards, and you can understand my consternation.
Essentially, I felt angry that people cared about it.
One of the things that kept me away from the Motorola Atrix was the locked bootloader. If Samsung is displaying this sort of dedication to openness, I'll have to seriously reconsider my resistance to buying their phones.
Truly, I think I may very well have found my next phone! I've been waiting for a company to do this!
I actually looked at that slightly differently. He says that these $60 games are "really worth it."
Well, how do you value those games at $60? If no one is willing to pay, then it's not "really" worth $60. If it was actually worth $60, people would be buying it, and you wouldn't be giving this interview.
Which is the call to action that you described. They've got to keep trying shit until the sales happen.
Considering the sheer size of the Times' market, if they only got 100,000 people even with "ballot stuffing" marketing, then it's undoubtedly very disappointing for them.
Granted, as I'm sure many people online pointed out, the conversion rate that they were hoping for was just insane. On today's internet, conversion rates of less than 1% are the norm. No matter how valuable you think that you are.
I think that the paywall is a stupid idea, but I think that it's too early to officially call it a stupid idea. I think that the data are too limited to really extract a meaningful decline.
I've been following the Times on Alexa and Quantcast and the time leading up to the paywall was wild, and the time after the paywall seems to have simply leveled off, if anything.
I think that data will be more indicative of the Times' situation when we get nearer to the 30-day mark from the initiation of the paywall. And even then, I suspect that the Times will be rather free in handing out accounts and letting in people who otherwise shouldn't be let it in, probably because they're terrified of the paywall being a failure and being forced to hear "Told'ja so!" from all of the websites that were, well, telling them so.
I've worked in online sales and marketing for over a decade. If they're expecting conversion rates of over 1%, they are being optimistic.
If they are expecting conversion rates of over 6%, they are living in a dream world.
If they are expecting conversion rates of over 10%, they don't understand how the world works.
If they are expecting conversion rates of 66%, they should be committed.
Conversion rates of over 1% were commonplace back in the late 90's and early 2000's. They no longer are. Today, conversion rates of 1% are excellent. A good target for any business.
Conversion rates of 10% are impossible. The best, most highly-focused marketing campaign on earth, where your links are only sent to fanatical customers loyal to your brand will not see conversion rates of 10%.
The NY Times is out of its mind to expect numbers like this.
Coming from the perspective of someone who's worked in online marketing and sales since the late 90's, I can tell you that their numbers are very optimistic.
Turning a click into a sale is called the conversion rate, and there are many details here that I could go into, but suffice it to say that a conversion rate of 1% is considered excellent. A conversion rate of 10% would be mind-blowing. Unheard of. Never before done.
Moreover, conversion rates only apply to those given the opportunity to convert, meaning the aforementioned 15%. Conversion rates of 6-66% are impossible. It will never happen.