5 ms·

not an artist but, reading between the lines, her real fight is against people who are copying. and profiting from her work. that said, i agree with the rulin

not an artist but, reading between the lines, her real fight is against people who are copying. and profiting from her work. that said, i agree with the ruling. there are chances that other artists who haven't seen her art before would come up with that scene. or that specific pose. not the other artistic choices, but the pose and the flowers, and even the kimono, yes.

nine_k 4y ago
Copyright is not a patent. If you paint a copy of Mona Lisa, it will be under your copyright, because of the provenance. There will be no doubt that it's your work, not Leonardo's.
- VanTheBrand 4y ago
  That’s actually incorrect. In your example it’s fine only because the painting is old enough to be in the public domain. In general (with rare exceptions) you can’t paint an exact copy of a work under copyright and then utilize that copyright without permission of the original copyright holder. What you’ve created is a “derivative work.”
kzrdude 4y ago
The face of the person in the painting is recognizable across the copying, I don't see how it can not be a copyright issue. Clearly cribbed her work completely and changed some color and details.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  Which is, indeed, legal in many jurisdictions (including the US). Cross-reference Andy Warhol's famous silk screens. For example, the reproduction of Elizabeth Taylor (https://www.sothebys.com/en/articles/andy-warhol-and-his-process https://www.sothebys.com/en/articles/andy-warhol-and-his-pro...) was sourced from a 1950s publicity photo.
  - detaro 4y ago
    This is kind of funny, given that "Estate of Andy Warhol vs a photographer of a picture he used" is in front of the supreme court right now, suggesting it might not be that clear-cut?
    - shadowgovt 4y ago
      The question of whether something is transformative isn't always clear-cut, but when it is ruled transformative, it's independently copyrightable. (IANAL, but personal opinion: appeals whiffed on this one and SCOTUS is going to give them a gentle wrist-slapping. Yes, there is a certain aspect of deciding the transformative nature of a work that requires the judge to step into the role of art critic. The nature of the test is to decide if a new work adds significant creative elements, and that's inherently subjective; the existence of the test doesn't let a judge dodge the art-critique responsibility).
  - zaroth 4y ago
    Warhol’s work - his painting of a photo of Prince - is going before the Surpreme Court to answer just this question, is it not?!
    - shadowgovt 4y ago
      It's going before the court to answer the question of whether that work is transformative. "Transformative" being an affirmative defense for copyright infringement is precedent (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 1994).
  - kzrdude 4y ago
    I think we can possibly see a difference - the face crop of Elizabeth Taylor could be regarded as generic, without artistic detail ("not original") while in this case the original photo with posture, composition, face, flowers, details together make it an original artwork with its own character.
- fzzzy 4y ago
  That's not what copyright is. Copyright is on a particular work. It had nothing to do with protecting stylistic elements.
  - kzrdude 4y ago
    What is "the work"? If you make the definition of the work too physical, it becomes impossible to violate copyright (can't clone matter).
IncRnd 4y ago
> i agree with the ruling. there are chances that other artists who haven't seen her art before would come up with that scene. or that specific pose. The copies are not "inspired" from the originals. They are copied, flipped vertically, changed in hue, and have some earings or tattoos added.
djur 4y ago
The flowers are arranged identically. The folds of fabric and hair are identical aside from a few trivial changes. It looks like a lightly photoshopped version of the original. Far too similar for chance.
- zimpenfish 4y ago
  If you flip it and overlay in Photoshop using a "difference" layer, it's pretty clear that it's almost identical.
- autoexec 4y ago
  It's not photoshop. It's an oil painting of a photograph, so of course it looks similar to the photo, but it also has several changes and it clearly took skill to paint. In fact it won some kind of award for how skillfully it was painted. It's a combination of the changes and the new medium that make it transformative.
  - djur 4y ago
    I can't agree. The changes are trivial[1]. An oil painting reproduction of a photograph is a derivative work, which makes this an unauthorized derivative work. The amount of skill involved in creating the reproduction is totally irrelevant, and a derivative work being transformative does not remove the original creator's rights over the distribution of derivative works. It's worth noting here that the court in question did not address whether the painting is a derivative work, but whether the photograph itself was creative enough to earn copyright protection. The idea that it isn't is even more outrageous than the idea that the painting isn't a derivative work. [1]: https://twitter.com/zemotion/status/1602206042523590658 https://twitter.com/zemotion/status/1602206042523590658
    - autoexec 4y ago
      I don't personally don't feel that the changes are trivial, since I find that I have a strong preference for the photo over the painting, but that's subjective. Either way, legally at least, you're right that many places wouldn't consider making artistic changes to be enough. I feel that artists should be free to create new derivative works however. All art is derivative and the purpose of copyright should be to protect artists from unauthorized reproduction, not prevent the creation of new artistic works. Copyright's original goal was to encourage the creation of new works, it's just been twisted over time into something that too often does the opposite of what it was created for. I agree that it's crazy that they didn't think photo should have any protection under copyright. It shouldn't matter how unoriginal it was, it's still clearly a work of art. It could get a little more complicated when you're talking about a photo of a very common thing (like a popular landmark) where it might be hard to tell the difference between two people's photos of the same thing, but a photo taken of a specific model at a specific time under specific lighting etc. that seems plenty unique enough to me.

nine_k 4y ago

Copyright is not a patent. If you paint a copy of Mona Lisa, it will be under your copyright, because of the provenance. There will be no doubt that it's your work, not Leonardo's.

VanTheBrand 4y ago
That’s actually incorrect. In your example it’s fine only because the painting is old enough to be in the public domain. In general (with rare exceptions) you can’t paint an exact copy of a work under copyright and then utilize that copyright without permission of the original copyright holder. What you’ve created is a “derivative work.”

kzrdude 4y ago

The face of the person in the painting is recognizable across the copying, I don't see how it can not be a copyright issue. Clearly cribbed her work completely and changed some color and details.

shadowgovt 4y ago
Which is, indeed, legal in many jurisdictions (including the US). Cross-reference Andy Warhol's famous silk screens. For example, the reproduction of Elizabeth Taylor (https://www.sothebys.com/en/articles/andy-warhol-and-his-process https://www.sothebys.com/en/articles/andy-warhol-and-his-pro...) was sourced from a 1950s publicity photo.
- detaro 4y ago
  This is kind of funny, given that "Estate of Andy Warhol vs a photographer of a picture he used" is in front of the supreme court right now, suggesting it might not be that clear-cut?
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    The question of whether something is transformative isn't always clear-cut, but when it is ruled transformative, it's independently copyrightable. (IANAL, but personal opinion: appeals whiffed on this one and SCOTUS is going to give them a gentle wrist-slapping. Yes, there is a certain aspect of deciding the transformative nature of a work that requires the judge to step into the role of art critic. The nature of the test is to decide if a new work adds significant creative elements, and that's inherently subjective; the existence of the test doesn't let a judge dodge the art-critique responsibility).
- zaroth 4y ago
  Warhol’s work - his painting of a photo of Prince - is going before the Surpreme Court to answer just this question, is it not?!
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    It's going before the court to answer the question of whether that work is transformative. "Transformative" being an affirmative defense for copyright infringement is precedent (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 1994).
- kzrdude 4y ago
  I think we can possibly see a difference - the face crop of Elizabeth Taylor could be regarded as generic, without artistic detail ("not original") while in this case the original photo with posture, composition, face, flowers, details together make it an original artwork with its own character.
fzzzy 4y ago
That's not what copyright is. Copyright is on a particular work. It had nothing to do with protecting stylistic elements.
- kzrdude 4y ago
  What is "the work"? If you make the definition of the work too physical, it becomes impossible to violate copyright (can't clone matter).

IncRnd 4y ago

> i agree with the ruling. there are chances that other artists who haven't seen her art before would come up with that scene. or that specific pose. The copies are not "inspired" from the originals. They are copied, flipped vertically, changed in hue, and have some earings or tattoos added.

djur 4y ago

The flowers are arranged identically. The folds of fabric and hair are identical aside from a few trivial changes. It looks like a lightly photoshopped version of the original. Far too similar for chance.

zimpenfish 4y ago
If you flip it and overlay in Photoshop using a "difference" layer, it's pretty clear that it's almost identical.
autoexec 4y ago
It's not photoshop. It's an oil painting of a photograph, so of course it looks similar to the photo, but it also has several changes and it clearly took skill to paint. In fact it won some kind of award for how skillfully it was painted. It's a combination of the changes and the new medium that make it transformative.
- djur 4y ago
  I can't agree. The changes are trivial[1]. An oil painting reproduction of a photograph is a derivative work, which makes this an unauthorized derivative work. The amount of skill involved in creating the reproduction is totally irrelevant, and a derivative work being transformative does not remove the original creator's rights over the distribution of derivative works. It's worth noting here that the court in question did not address whether the painting is a derivative work, but whether the photograph itself was creative enough to earn copyright protection. The idea that it isn't is even more outrageous than the idea that the painting isn't a derivative work. [1]: https://twitter.com/zemotion/status/1602206042523590658 https://twitter.com/zemotion/status/1602206042523590658
  - autoexec 4y ago
    I don't personally don't feel that the changes are trivial, since I find that I have a strong preference for the photo over the painting, but that's subjective. Either way, legally at least, you're right that many places wouldn't consider making artistic changes to be enough. I feel that artists should be free to create new derivative works however. All art is derivative and the purpose of copyright should be to protect artists from unauthorized reproduction, not prevent the creation of new artistic works. Copyright's original goal was to encourage the creation of new works, it's just been twisted over time into something that too often does the opposite of what it was created for. I agree that it's crazy that they didn't think photo should have any protection under copyright. It shouldn't matter how unoriginal it was, it's still clearly a work of art. It could get a little more complicated when you're talking about a photo of a very common thing (like a popular landmark) where it might be hard to tell the difference between two people's photos of the same thing, but a photo taken of a specific model at a specific time under specific lighting etc. that seems plenty unique enough to me.