4 ms·

https://alexanderwales.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/image.png https://alexanderwales.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/image.... Left: “Girl with a Pearl Earrin

https://alexanderwales.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/image.png https://alexanderwales.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/image.... Left: “Girl with a Pearl Earring, by Johannes Vermeer” by Stable Diffusion Right: Girl with a Pearl Earring by Johannes Vermeer This specific one is not copyright violation as it is old enough for copyright to expire. But the same may happen with other images. from https://alexanderwales.com/the-ai-art-apocalypse/ https://alexanderwales.com/the-ai-art-apocalypse/ and https://alexanderwales.com/addendum-to-the-ai-art-apocalypse-theft/ https://alexanderwales.com/addendum-to-the-ai-art-apocalypse...

Filligree 4y ago
If a human drew that, it would not be copyright violation.
- matkoniecz 4y ago
  It is a clear case of derivative work (see also https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Derivative_works https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Derivative_works - internal docs, but their explanation of copyright status tends to be well done) This specific one would not be a problem, but doing it with a still copyrighted work would be.
- mattkrause 4y ago
  I’m not so sure about that. The scenes à faire doctrine would certainly let you paint your own picture of a pretty girl with a large earring, even a pearl one. That, however, is definitely the same person, in the same pose/composition, in the same outfit. The colors are slightly off, but the difference feels like a technical error rather than an expressive choice.
  - Thorrez 4y ago
    Even if it is an expressive choice of the new artist, if enough of the original artist's expressive choice remains, it could still be a copyright violation. Fair use can sometimes be a defense, but there are a lot of factors that go into determining whether something is fair use.
  - boulos 4y ago
    Really? It looks like some bad Warhol take on the Vermeer original.
    - mattkrause 4y ago
      That’s a really apt comparison, since the Supreme Court just heard Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts v. Goldsmith, which hinges on whether Warhol’s use of a copyrighted photo of Prince as the basis for “Orange Prince” was Fair Use. Warhol’s estate seems likely to lose and their strongest argument is that Warhol took a documentary photo and transformed it into a commentary on celebrity culture. Here, I don’t even see that applying: it just looks like a bad copy. https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/10/justices-debate-whether-warhol-image-is-fair-use-of-photograph-of-prince/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/10/justices-debate-whether-w...
- Thorrez 4y ago
  Why? Obviously it wouldn't be a copyright violation because the original one is old enough to no longer by copyrighted. But other than age?
  - atchoo 4y ago
    The photograph of the art, which will be more recent, might have copyright protections. It looks like it wouldn't in the UK, probably wouldn't in the US but would in Germany. The cases seem to hinge on the level of intellectual creativity of the photograph involved. The UK said that trying to create an exact copy was not an original endeavour whereas Germany said the task of exact replication requires intellectual/technical effort of it's own merit. https://www.theipmatters.com/post/are-photographs-of-public-domain-artworks-copyrightable https://www.theipmatters.com/post/are-photographs-of-public-...
- makeitdouble 4y ago
  If the original art is still copyrighted, and you’d start selling your hand drawn variation, you’d totally be violating the copyright. To make it concrete, imagine the latest Disney movie poster. You redraw it 95% close to the original, just changing the actual title. Then you sell your poster on Amazon at half the price of the actual poster. Would you get a copyright strike ?

Filligree 4y ago

If a human drew that, it would not be copyright violation.

matkoniecz 4y ago
It is a clear case of derivative work (see also https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Derivative_works https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Derivative_works - internal docs, but their explanation of copyright status tends to be well done) This specific one would not be a problem, but doing it with a still copyrighted work would be.
mattkrause 4y ago
I’m not so sure about that. The scenes à faire doctrine would certainly let you paint your own picture of a pretty girl with a large earring, even a pearl one. That, however, is definitely the same person, in the same pose/composition, in the same outfit. The colors are slightly off, but the difference feels like a technical error rather than an expressive choice.
- Thorrez 4y ago
  Even if it is an expressive choice of the new artist, if enough of the original artist's expressive choice remains, it could still be a copyright violation. Fair use can sometimes be a defense, but there are a lot of factors that go into determining whether something is fair use.
- boulos 4y ago
  Really? It looks like some bad Warhol take on the Vermeer original.
  - mattkrause 4y ago
    That’s a really apt comparison, since the Supreme Court just heard Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts v. Goldsmith, which hinges on whether Warhol’s use of a copyrighted photo of Prince as the basis for “Orange Prince” was Fair Use. Warhol’s estate seems likely to lose and their strongest argument is that Warhol took a documentary photo and transformed it into a commentary on celebrity culture. Here, I don’t even see that applying: it just looks like a bad copy. https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/10/justices-debate-whether-warhol-image-is-fair-use-of-photograph-of-prince/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/10/justices-debate-whether-w...
Thorrez 4y ago
Why? Obviously it wouldn't be a copyright violation because the original one is old enough to no longer by copyrighted. But other than age?
- atchoo 4y ago
  The photograph of the art, which will be more recent, might have copyright protections. It looks like it wouldn't in the UK, probably wouldn't in the US but would in Germany. The cases seem to hinge on the level of intellectual creativity of the photograph involved. The UK said that trying to create an exact copy was not an original endeavour whereas Germany said the task of exact replication requires intellectual/technical effort of it's own merit. https://www.theipmatters.com/post/are-photographs-of-public-domain-artworks-copyrightable https://www.theipmatters.com/post/are-photographs-of-public-...
makeitdouble 4y ago
If the original art is still copyrighted, and you’d start selling your hand drawn variation, you’d totally be violating the copyright. To make it concrete, imagine the latest Disney movie poster. You redraw it 95% close to the original, just changing the actual title. Then you sell your poster on Amazon at half the price of the actual poster. Would you get a copyright strike ?