It's a thorny issue. I'm not so concerned about Lethem's film options, and motivations, or whatever. But the points he raises regarding discussion, incorporation, appropriation etc. are valid issues. I think it's fair to say that art is a dialogue. Who owns the rights to a conversation spanning thousands of years?

The point isn't whether someone can take your book and put his or her name on it. That obviously qualifies in most minds as theft, pure and simple.

What Lethem is pointing out is that there's excessive and oppressive control over legacies and fair use, and that it's virtually impossible to conceive of art that is created in a vacuum wherein the artist has never been influenced. By default, anyone who creates is to some degree borrowing from something that someone else has already created. No creative sensibility has developed without outside influence or inspiration. Isn't any money the new writer earns in some way obliged toward Joyce, or Hemingway, Faulkner, James, Homer, Shakespeare, whomever? We seem to have no problem with reinterpreting Shakespeare. Or Homer. Doesn't every penny taken in by the movie version of Troy somehow belong to Homer? If not, is it because he's so long dead, or because no estate was established, or copyright expires? From whom did Homer borrow?

Quoting a lyric in a novel should not be prohibited, nor should it require payment. The artist creating the lyric has had his/her fondest wish realized, that their words and music have been so successful that they have become significant enough to the fabric of culture so as to be meaningfully quoted. It's fair to assume that they've already made money from the lyric, and that its quotation would only further interest and possible commercial gain. No novel is going to succeed or fail because of that lyric. The commercial gain of the book as a whole is not dependent on that lyric. Or lyrics introducing every chapter.

Should an academic require permission from the Joyce estate to quote Joyce in writing a book about Joyce? Doesn't freedom of thought and speech allow us to discuss works deliberately introduced into the public realm? Isn't culture served by such discussions? Isn't that what universities are all about? Such a project seems only to enhance the value and continued currency of Joyce. What if said book introduces Joyce to a whole new generation of book buyers? Ah, but Joyce was so successful that other people can make money or reputations talking about Joyce. I'd rather be that artist than one who is irrelevant.

It's roughly analagous, in my mind, to the difference between private citizens and public figures. If you choose to become a public figure, you have a diminished right to privacy. To me, likewise, if you seek to introduce work into the public realm, you have to expect, or even want, for it not to be "stolen," but to become significant or striking enough that others would want to reference, incorporate, riff on it, whatever. All that is required in return, as in academia, is proper attribution and credit. Yes, it's hard to make a living from art, and artists want to protect their creations. Understandable. But we all stand on the shoulders of giants in this regard. All creatives owe a debt to some predecessor that can never be repaid.

I paint and write. I'd like to make a full-time living at it. But I'd like to think I understand the difference between someone printing my paintings on t-shirts and pocketing all the money, vs another artist commenting on one of my paintings as part of the cultural dialogue. I create out of an innate need, and take joy in the process for its own sake. Doesn't mean I wouldn't like to make more money from it. But I never started creating to make money.

So it seems obvious that you can't take someone's photograph, print it and sell it as your work without committing theft. But the much more nebulous middle ground goes to the heart of creativity, such as incorporating an iconic image that has an entire cultural context into a large painting that is using cultural shorthand to make another point, much like quoting someone in a conversation or argument. And here, greater freedom would always seem to be preferred to diminished freedom.

I can't imagine it's that difficult to understand that the employer of a media personality has the right to fire said employee if the employee makes comments that generate a negative backlash that hurts the brand and its revenue.

It isn't about free speech. Imus can say whatever he wants to, as Ms. Walsh pointed out. But he's paid to attract listeners, and therefore money from advertisers who want to reach those listeners.

When he pisses people off enough that advertisers don't want to be associated with him, he's become counterproductive—a liability rather than an asset.

If you called people "nappy-headed hos" at your place of work, you might very well find yourself fired, too. Whether or not you were trying to get a laugh.

The analogy to a standup comedian is spurious. That revenue comes from ticket sales, not advertisers. Patrons either buy tickets or they don't. If they don't, no standup comedian. If they do...Then the comedian goes on. You didn't see Richard Pryor or anyone else doing their nightclub act on The Tonight Show, did you?

As for what Rosie is apparently saying, if you can't see the difference between that and Imus' act...She may also be slitting her on-air wrists, but for different reasons.

Can you change the channel? Sure. But advertisers ultimately determine who's on the air, unless someone is privately bankrolling the entire endeavor. And even then, the right to free speech is not absolute. "Fire in a crowded theater" ring any bells?

So Imus gets fired...Who cares. It's not a violation of free speech. It's the not-so-invisible hand of the marketplace.