3 ms·
This is my favorite part of this whole "debate". I think the layperson does not realize how "risky" it is to be an "artist" because of copyright. The entire ar
by lbotos 4y ago
This is my favorite part of this whole "debate". I think the layperson does not realize how "risky" it is to be an "artist" because of copyright.
The entire art tradition is based on copying for study, and then using our brains to convince ourselves that we've "transformed it enough" or "my reference is obscure enough that no one will know."
Now we've simplified that process, and more people are exposed to the risk. I hope that the law takes a minute to evaluate the pace of change instead of saying "ITS TOO DANGEROUS, we must BAN IT", but my hopes are low.
- Keyframe 4y agoI couldn't have said it better myself. Pretty much all of art relies on inspiration and "inspiration". Pending few possible cases (I've yet to see) where actual art is lifted and pasted, all I've seen so far (firsthand even) is style lifting and even that not fully. Is style copyrightable?
- vhold 4y agoSome very famous paintings it can almost reproduce, like the Mona Lisa and The Last Supper. It can’t get it quite right but I think it’s close enough to be considered copying. So there might be a copyrighted instance of that, but I haven’t seen one yet.