3 ms·

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.

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.

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