3 ms·
Instagram is covered. They have entered into an agreement with the original owner to distribute on their behalf. However, if you're not instagram and "new por
by KaiserPro 11y ago
Instagram is covered.
They have entered into an agreement with the original owner to distribute on their behalf.
However, if you're not instagram and "new portraits" are not, then they do not have a license. More importantly I don't think instgram has right to sub license your content. So unless it is instagram selling these "art works" he's breaking the law.
But, he's got more money than most of you, so good luck proving that.
- mbrock 11y agoBut the court explicitly judged that he is not breaking the law. He doesn't need a contractual agreement—his work is "fair use." You can argue that he's ethically wrong, but why do you say he's breaking the law?
- comrh 11y agoThe article says it was ruled he wasn't breaking the law when it came to the modified “Yes Rasta” picture. Unless I missed it I don't think his Instagram "art" has been challenged in court.
- chrismcb 11y agoOne image, that he actually changed was judged as not breaking the law. Other works, including the Instagram detours, were he merely added a quoted have not been challenged. I personally don't think adding a quote is enough to transform the work