3 ms·
this argument doesn't make any sense. a photo doesn't have an API.
by appleflaxen 6y ago
this argument doesn't make any sense.
a photo doesn't have an API.
- infradig 6y agoIt doesn't? Maybe the API of a photograph or other piece of work is how you perceive or appreciate it... the aesthetic of it. In this sense what Warhol has done is transformative.
- iratewizard 6y agoAPI stands for application programming interface. Or didn't you know?
- bonzini 6y agoAnd the article says that the decision is not just about "the API" but about "the part of a copyrighted work that is recognizable to a wide public".
- iratewizard 6y agoMy reply was to the banal statement, "Maybe the API of a photograph or other piece of work is how you perceive or appreciate it"
- Croftengea 6y ago> In this sense what Warhol has done is transformative. Where is the line between blatant copying and transformation? If I take some photograph and just change colors can I claim I changed the photo's perception and thus sent a unique message? Maybe, but it's all about ideas in my head, not the changed photo itself. Same goes about many Warhol's works. They are just slightly changed copies of someone else copyrighted works and must be accompanied by art critiques explanations to be appreciated in full.
- make3 6y agoI don't think it's that clear. The interface of a library is still part of the library, albeit a very small one (smallest possible to enable interoperability). So, the SCOTUS accepts that re-using part of a creation can be fair-use.