As much as I hate to be on his side, I think the judge's ruling against him in a copyright infringement lawsuit is another disturbing sign of how copyright law is going in the wrong direction.
The judge examines the four factors of the fair use test, including (1) the purpose and character of use; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for the copyrighted work, and determines that Guetta can't satisfy his burden in establishing this defense.
(read the whole article and see if you think it was the right decision)
Here's the thing: the guy was not simply selling posters or photos of the original, and if anything, his installation (made with 1,000 records) might have renewed a potential market for the original work. It seems to me that there are a lot of corporate wolves clothed in the "protection of the artist" sheepskin.
The article asks if Andy Warhol would have survived the current legal ruling. Probably not, but things are even worse for street photographers. Between all of the people, the businesses, the car license plates, the advertising, etc ,etc--- we are always walking in a legal minefield. Pretty soon we will just stay inside taking photos of flowers or bowls of fruit instead. But not without carefully removing the "Dole" stickers first.