I don't understand this comment. You're replying to someone who points out an acknowledged flaw in Baio's logic: he "went out of his way" for the music but ignored the rights on the cover art. Even Baio wouldn't disagree with that; had Baio known, he obviously would have tried to license the art and, failing that, come up with some other cover.
I don't see how the quote here has been misappropriated at all.
Further, the subtext of your comment seems false. "The point is that he was trying, and trying very hard". Well, no. That's not the point. The legal system often does give credit for trying, in the sense that a good faith effort may ward off treble damages. But compliance with the law is often not a best-effort thing, and you do not in the real world always get points for effort.
The problem jerf is referring to, IMO, is this part:
Therefore, the "entire project" wasn't "above board" and the statement above is disingenuous.
He's explicitly (and literally) stating that Baio was not being sincere. When this clearly isn't the case. I think we both understand the difference between disingenuous and an oversight.
And in particular he wasn't being disingenous with the statement he made. As jerf points out the statement is used as the pretext for the mistake he made. How in the world could that be disingenuous -- unless you think he didn't actually try and is lying about the whole thing?
He obviously didn't go out of his way to make sure the entire project was above board as he didn't check the art, therefore the statement is disingenuous.
I think jerf's got the wrong end of the stick of the idiom:
went out of my way
It doesn't mean try, it means done more than necessary, when he hadn't done the necessary. He hadn't even checked whether they'd be any issue with the artwork.
If he'd said I thought I went out of my way it'd give the sentence the meaning that jerf and you seem to be giving it.
But he didn't and so gallerytungsten is right, although being a little pedantic as the author did later explain he'd just assumed the use was transformational enough.
When I was reading the article I had to re-read the first few paragraphs as it doesn't actually make sense (to say he'd checked the entire project was above board when it clearly wasn't or he wouldn't be writing the article).
But if you do, I hope the world is kinder to you than you are to baio.
As far as I'm concerned, it's irresponsible to defame baio based on nothings but a particularly uncharitable reading of a blog post. I don't understand why you think that's enough to claim he is purposefully dishonest.
As kenjackson said, the word that set me off was disingenuous. It is a hostile interpretation of the original article that the author first claimed to be blameless and above board, then turned around immediately and explained how was not blameless. Instead, with a reading where you extend the author a bit more credit, it is a story of an acknowledged oversight, where the goal of being above board was not met, and the evidence of that goal was the fact that he licensed everything else he thought of to license. (Goals aren't results.) I'm not talking about legalities at all.
You twisted his words to imply he stated that the work he did was in fact "above board." He never said that, in fact, the entire point of this article was about the fact that his attempt to "keep it above board" (what he actually said) failed.
Photographs & Music are two very different mediums.
A music composition is made to be played. And part of that is that multiple people will probably be playing it. The fact that the instrument choice used on the album was unique did not make it any different from any other cover album. And thus permission was sought.
A photograph on the other hand is made to be viewed & that's not how it was being used in this case. It was being used as the inspiration for a new derivative work of art which played off the concept of the music.
I can totally see why Baio was not worried about licensing the original. I can also totally see how this was a mistake in practice.
I don't see how the quote here has been misappropriated at all.
Further, the subtext of your comment seems false. "The point is that he was trying, and trying very hard". Well, no. That's not the point. The legal system often does give credit for trying, in the sense that a good faith effort may ward off treble damages. But compliance with the law is often not a best-effort thing, and you do not in the real world always get points for effort.