4 ms·
>But if I took 100 paintings from a single artist and combined them all into new works of art, that would probably be copyright infringement in my view What ma
by deadbeeves 4y ago
>But if I took 100 paintings from a single artist and combined them all into new works of art, that would probably be copyright infringement in my view
What makes you say that? A work is considered derivative with regards to another work, not to an author. If we take your jigsaw example and accept that the final result would not be derivative of any of the works that contributed each individual piece, and then pretend as if in actuality all the sources were from the same artist, what would change that would suddenly make the result derivative from some or all of the original works?
- galaxyLogic 4y agoYou are probably right there, I was just assuming that courts would consider it a factor if all pieces came from the same author. As I understand it copyright infringement is not just a pure "crime" in itself. It is about the financial harm caused. I think the word they use is "tort". It is always about violating somebody else's right(s). Oracle sues Google for Java copyright infringement. It is not just about "Hey here's a copyright infringement ... put Google in jail". It is about "We lost a billion dollars, because of your infringement". So Oracle claims not just a single copyright infringement of a single work, but billion dollars worth of infringement. It is not black and white, it is quantitative. How much there is of it determines the seriousness of the violation. I'm not a lawyer of course, don't take my advise.