4 ms·

A couple of days ago, I noted my surprise that a person could be sued for copyright infringement by quoting even a single line of a song: https://news.ycombina

by jawns 11y ago

A couple of days ago, I noted my surprise that a person could be sued for copyright infringement by quoting even a single line of a song: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10672934 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10672934 How the heck can Richard Prince's use of other people's works be considered fair use if quoting a single line from a song is not considered fair use?

mbrutsch 11y ago
Because of the wonderful way copyrights work on photographs. When I take a picture, I own the copyright of that picture, even if it's of a copyrighted thing. That's how photographers stay in business (think about school photos, or wedding photos, with studio logos and expensive "packages"). If I take your picture, your image belongs to me. So it follows that if I take a picture of your picture, that also belongs to me. Isn't copyright a wonderfully logical instrument?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- hrnnnnnn 11y ago
  A photograph of a photograph is a derivative work, and has to be ruled as fair use to be legal, you don't automatically own the copyright. https://www.lumendatabase.org/topics/16 https://www.lumendatabase.org/topics/16
- npongratz 11y ago
  > Isn't copyright a wonderfully logical instrument? This prompts me to think of the case where instead of taking a photo-of-a-photo, one takes a "series of photos in rapid succession of a series of photos also in rapid succession", a la taking a camcorder into a movie theater.
- at-fates-hands 11y ago
  >> If I take your picture, your image belongs to me. So it follows that if I take a picture of your picture, that also belongs to me. As was pointed out in the article, only if its transformative in some way does copyright give you cover under the "fair use" doctrine: Prince’s appropriation was “transformative” enough to qualify for fair use. In the words of the presiding judge: “[Prince’s] work adds new meaning...and the fair use doctrine guarantees [him] breathing space.” A simple picture of a picture without alteration would still be considered infringement under the current copyright laws.
  - mbrutsch 11y ago
    > A simple picture of a picture without alteration would still be considered infringement under the current copyright laws. Ever seen it happen IRL? Got a link?
- chrismcb 11y ago
  It doesn't "follow." You can't just take a picture of a picture, that works be illegal and a copyright infringement. A photograph is only copyrighted if it had a creative aspect. If you duplicate a photo by taking a picture of it, your picture is merely a copy. His screenshots are merely copies. He gets around the issues by "transforming" them. Adding a quote isn't enough, imo.
- chrismcb 11y ago
  It doesn't "follow." You can't just take a picture of a picture, that works be illegal and a copyright infringement. A photograph is only copyrighted if it had a creative aspect. If you duplicate a photo by taking a picture of it, your picture is merely a copy. His screenshots are merely copies. He gets around the issues by "transforming" them. Adding a quote isn't enough, imo.
zenpaul 11y ago
And how can Richard Prince get away with obvious photographic re-use when Shephard Fairey can't adapt a painting from a picture? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster
- mfoy_ 11y ago
  The legal system perpetually baffles me.
- slavik81 11y ago
  That was settled out of court, although, apparently "A judge urged a settlement, stating that AP would win the case." I'm unclear on whether that was before or after it was revealed that Fairey had fabricated evidence.
moron4hire 11y ago
Because there is no RIAA for photographers. Because Richard Prince isn't tussling with Stevie Nicks. The law is not applied equally. You get special treatment if you're rich.
lmm 11y ago
If you're just quoting it, and not doing anything transformative with it (or other things protected by fair use e.g. criticism), then yes that's infringing. Per the article a judge ruled that Prince's work was transformative.

by jawns 11y ago

mbrutsch 11y ago

Because of the wonderful way copyrights work on photographs. When I take a picture, I own the copyright of that picture, even if it's of a copyrighted thing. That's how photographers stay in business (think about school photos, or wedding photos, with studio logos and expensive "packages"). If I take your picture, your image belongs to me. So it follows that if I take a picture of your picture, that also belongs to me. Isn't copyright a wonderfully logical instrument?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
hrnnnnnn 11y ago
A photograph of a photograph is a derivative work, and has to be ruled as fair use to be legal, you don't automatically own the copyright. https://www.lumendatabase.org/topics/16 https://www.lumendatabase.org/topics/16
npongratz 11y ago
> Isn't copyright a wonderfully logical instrument? This prompts me to think of the case where instead of taking a photo-of-a-photo, one takes a "series of photos in rapid succession of a series of photos also in rapid succession", a la taking a camcorder into a movie theater.
at-fates-hands 11y ago
>> If I take your picture, your image belongs to me. So it follows that if I take a picture of your picture, that also belongs to me. As was pointed out in the article, only if its transformative in some way does copyright give you cover under the "fair use" doctrine: Prince’s appropriation was “transformative” enough to qualify for fair use. In the words of the presiding judge: “[Prince’s] work adds new meaning...and the fair use doctrine guarantees [him] breathing space.” A simple picture of a picture without alteration would still be considered infringement under the current copyright laws.
- mbrutsch 11y ago
  > A simple picture of a picture without alteration would still be considered infringement under the current copyright laws. Ever seen it happen IRL? Got a link?
chrismcb 11y ago
It doesn't "follow." You can't just take a picture of a picture, that works be illegal and a copyright infringement. A photograph is only copyrighted if it had a creative aspect. If you duplicate a photo by taking a picture of it, your picture is merely a copy. His screenshots are merely copies. He gets around the issues by "transforming" them. Adding a quote isn't enough, imo.
chrismcb 11y ago
It doesn't "follow." You can't just take a picture of a picture, that works be illegal and a copyright infringement. A photograph is only copyrighted if it had a creative aspect. If you duplicate a photo by taking a picture of it, your picture is merely a copy. His screenshots are merely copies. He gets around the issues by "transforming" them. Adding a quote isn't enough, imo.

zenpaul 11y ago

And how can Richard Prince get away with obvious photographic re-use when Shephard Fairey can't adapt a painting from a picture? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster

mfoy_ 11y ago
The legal system perpetually baffles me.
slavik81 11y ago
That was settled out of court, although, apparently "A judge urged a settlement, stating that AP would win the case." I'm unclear on whether that was before or after it was revealed that Fairey had fabricated evidence.

moron4hire 11y ago

Because there is no RIAA for photographers. Because Richard Prince isn't tussling with Stevie Nicks. The law is not applied equally. You get special treatment if you're rich.

lmm 11y ago

If you're just quoting it, and not doing anything transformative with it (or other things protected by fair use e.g. criticism), then yes that's infringing. Per the article a judge ruled that Prince's work was transformative.