4 ms·

I agree, but under the present system of copyright, the work is infringing.

masswerk 4y ago
I think, this can't be handled on a general or universal basis. E.g., in the given case, I don't think that anybody would find a rough line tracing infringing. So, how comes that it's infringing, when the lines are filled by a black ink? Moreover, it's not a perfect copy, aspect and format are different (sufficiently to make this a legal museum copy), texture and color are different, even the outlines don't match. Even more, it seems that it wasn't initially apparent to even Lynn Goldsmith herself that Warhol's portrait was based on this photo. Where's the exact border between "inspired by" and "an infringing copy"? This case is even more interesting, as the photographer argues that the Warhol's image directly competed with the original photo for a cover of Vogue and that the magazine picked Warhol's image to license. But, this is also a strong indication of the genuine artistic value of Warhol's work/version, since there was a reason that this was picked by the editors over the other one. There is a semantic difference, which was introduced by Warhol.
- linuxftw 4y ago
  None of this makes the artistic rendering less of a derivative work. It's clear the rendering is meant to be an artistic take on a certain photograph. The border between infringing and not is subjective, like many things.
  - masswerk 4y ago
    Would a sketch of stick figures erecting a flag pole be infringing with respect to the famous Iwo Jima photo? The reference may be instantly recognized, but still… The only way I could think of this happening, is with respect to this actually being a directed set photo instead of the documentary it's usually deemed to be. However, this (the photo of Prince) is not a choreographed piece, it's rather a collaboration of many factors and skills contributing to the shot. And, can a consortium of photographers actually own the likeliness of a person, since there are few chances to make a regonizable visual reference to a person without referring to a photo, as soon as the person is dead? So any depiction would be derivative per se, even it it were technically not founded on an individual photo. Finally, a work may be derivative and even infringing, if it falls into the regulatory frame work of fair use. This is part of the system, as well. What is in question are the exact boundaries of this.

I think, this can't be handled on a general or universal basis. E.g., in the given case, I don't think that anybody would find a rough line tracing infringing. So, how comes that it's infringing, when the lines are filled by a black ink? Moreover, it's not a perfect copy, aspect and format are different (sufficiently to make this a legal museum copy), texture and color are different, even the outlines don't match. Even more, it seems that it wasn't initially apparent to even Lynn Goldsmith herself that Warhol's portrait was based on this photo. Where's the exact border between "inspired by" and "an infringing copy"? This case is even more interesting, as the photographer argues that the Warhol's image directly competed with the original photo for a cover of Vogue and that the magazine picked Warhol's image to license. But, this is also a strong indication of the genuine artistic value of Warhol's work/version, since there was a reason that this was picked by the editors over the other one. There is a semantic difference, which was introduced by Warhol.

linuxftw 4y ago
None of this makes the artistic rendering less of a derivative work. It's clear the rendering is meant to be an artistic take on a certain photograph. The border between infringing and not is subjective, like many things.
- masswerk 4y ago
  Would a sketch of stick figures erecting a flag pole be infringing with respect to the famous Iwo Jima photo? The reference may be instantly recognized, but still… The only way I could think of this happening, is with respect to this actually being a directed set photo instead of the documentary it's usually deemed to be. However, this (the photo of Prince) is not a choreographed piece, it's rather a collaboration of many factors and skills contributing to the shot. And, can a consortium of photographers actually own the likeliness of a person, since there are few chances to make a regonizable visual reference to a person without referring to a photo, as soon as the person is dead? So any depiction would be derivative per se, even it it were technically not founded on an individual photo. Finally, a work may be derivative and even infringing, if it falls into the regulatory frame work of fair use. This is part of the system, as well. What is in question are the exact boundaries of this.