2 ms·
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 bor
by 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 agoWould 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.