7 ms·

I don't really understand, I'd think that complete reproduction of her photo should be prohibited under copyright. No one should be able to take copies of her p

I don't really understand, I'd think that complete reproduction of her photo should be prohibited under copyright. No one should be able to take copies of her photo and paste it onto whatever product they want to sell for example. If her exact photo has been denied copyright protections I'd agree that's a problem. That said, the pose is not unique and her example of someone who "copied" her work (https://nitter.net/pic/orig/media%2FFjY3coxaYAImURa.jpg https://nitter.net/pic/orig/media%2FFjY3coxaYAImURa.jpg) wasn't identical and should be allowed. It's clearly directly influenced by the original, but if someone else wants to create something similar that's just art. It's what all artists do and always have done. If artists couldn't create their own versions of things captured in works by other artists, new art could not exist. No one should be able to copyright a "style" or a pose just like no one should be able to copyright a genre or a camera angle.

glandium 4y ago
How is it only "inspired" when it's not only the same pose, but the same person and the same clothes, up to its individual folds. "Inspired" would be inviting a model to wear the same thing and take the pose, and painting that. Here, it's a reproduction of the mirrored picture, with different colors and trivial changes (like the earings). Calling this inspiration is utterly ridiculous.
- autoexec 4y ago
  > but the same person and the same clothes, up to its individual folds. It's not the same person. The face is very different, as is the hair. not the same folds either, look at the white cloth near the flower. It's also a painting and not a photograph. If a painter creates a painting of Grand Central Station has he violated the copyright of the architect? Artists must be able to create, by their own hand, their own versions of things depicted in other works of art or even of other artistic works themselves. (see for example https://publicdelivery.org/fernando-botero-mona-lisa/ https://publicdelivery.org/fernando-botero-mona-lisa/)
  - glandium 4y ago
    Counter example: THE TOWER ILLUMINATED Controlled use The various illuminations of the Eiffel Tower (golden illumination, twinkling, beacon and events lighting) are protected. The use of the image of the Eiffel Tower at night is therefore subject to prior authorisation by the SETE. This use is subject to payment of rights, the amount of which is determined by the intended use, the media plan, etc. https://www.toureiffel.paris/en/business/use-image-of-eiffel-tower https://www.toureiffel.paris/en/business/use-image-of-eiffel...
    - pdntspa 4y ago
      This sort of copyright absurdity warrants flouting the rules as often as is realistically possible. It may be an overreach backed by law, but that makes it no less of an overreach.
      - glandium 4y ago
        Note, I don't have a strong opinion wrt copyright infringement in the case OP is about, but words are important. Let's not pretend it's "inspired".
    - autoexec 4y ago
      True, I do feel that some cases take copyright protection way too far and we're all worse off for it. Here's another example of that from the US: https://rpjlaw.com/blurred-lines-copying-songs-musical-style-enough-warrant-copyright-infringement/ https://rpjlaw.com/blurred-lines-copying-songs-musical-style... Overbroad copyright protections are often granted, but it's never a good thing for anyone except the shortsighted artists who stand to directly benefit from censoring their peers and preventing the rest of us from having a richer culture.
    - twic 4y ago
      This is a "freedom of panorama" thing, one of the few aspects of copyright which varies extensively across the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama
- debesyla 4y ago
  It's not a carbon copy and the changes aren't minimal - thus it's inspired, not copied. After all, copyright works for whole thing, not spare parts (technique, style or "idea" aren't copyrightable)...
  - laserlight 4y ago
    > copyright works for whole thing No, this is wrong. Here's a counterexample [0]. [0] Structure, sequence and organization. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure,_sequence_and_organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure,_sequence_and_organi...
  - esrauch 4y ago
    Essentially any movie adaptation of a book can't be copyright infringement based on this being the bar; even cases that keep many lines of dialog verbatim end up just being detail similar to keeping the exact same folds of fabric at the bottom.
    - autoexec 4y ago
      > Essentially any movie adaptation of a book can't be copyright infringement based on this being the bar; I'd agree with that. A movie adaptation (with changes) should be allowed under copyright because it's clearly transformative and creative. Copyright should protect against reproduction without compensation, it shouldn't be used to prevent new artistic works from being created even when they are based on existing works. That's how I feel about it anyway, although sadly the law we have today in the US would disagree.
- fallinghawks 4y ago
  I agree, it is far beyond "inspiration". Next to zero changes: same type of flowers, identical thinness of straps, hair up in a loose bun with strands spraying in very similar locations, folds in the fabric carbon-copy identical. Even the eyebrow, with its slight heaviness on the straight part, is the same. Dude made her eye a bit more slanted, wow. This is saying anyone can flip, photocopy, and color someone else's work, making the most nominal changes, and it's suddenly an "original."
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - wruza 4y ago
    Tbh, what I perceive as “art” in the original work is still unique and wasn’t copied into the reproduction. It’s a copy of hair, face and clothing configuration, which is non-unique and a strange subject for copyright. I mean this is obviously borderline, but still a subjective issue. If you like analogies, it’s like some pro photographer found a place, angle and hundreds of other parameters to shoot in the nature, copyrighted the image, and then someone geoguess’d that exact place next day and took a pic with their iphone or google maps street view.
pdntspa 4y ago
I agree. I am part of the local art community and there is this meme idea floating around that the artist owns everything about a work they make, even the idea. At present people are using this to bash on AI art and decry it as stolen. But this is mistaken, both from a legal sense (many aspects of a work are not copyrightable), and in a physics sense (you cannot control an idea in the minds of others, information wants to be free, and so on). I don't want to deny that AI artwork is potentially a threat, much in the way that a printing press was to scribes of the time or a camera to painters. And I understand the need to put food on the table. But the only form of protection available is limited at best, by design, and I think many of these people fail to see how they might be infringing on others' copyright under such a harsh and draconian interpretation of it.
- buildbot 4y ago
  As both an artist and an AI person for my dayjob, this is spot on. People are losing their minds (esp. on twitter ) but really it’s exactly identical to the painting to photography transition. I had an acquaintance tell me to either learn how to draw or commission work, when I expressed that Stable Diffusion was neat for people who might want to create visual art based on their text ideas - still requires human interaction, still art in my book. It was kind of a sad lack of reflection given that their own art reproduced trademarked media from certain spicy chili sauce brands.
- HPMOR 4y ago
  >"and in a physics sense (you cannot control an idea in the minds of other," I think we should add the caveat "yet", to your quote. I imagine it's physiological to control ideas in people's brains if you could accurately and correctly map neurons to people's thoughts.
  - someweirdperson 4y ago
    Isn't the information stored in the EM-field the neurons create, not the neurons themselves?
GoofballJones 4y ago
Because what they did wasn't original. I've seen this pose, this "look", this everything thousands of times over before this person was even alive. To claim this whole thing is copy-writable is ludicrous. Now, the image in and of itself is unique and the other people taking it and just flipping it and saying suddenly "it's mine" is just as ludicrous.
MaxBarraclough 4y ago
> It's clearly directly influenced by the original, but if someone else wants to create something similar that's just art. It's what all artists do and always have done. Copyrights can on some occasions preclude someone from independently creating a very similar work. In the UK, a photographer was found to have infringed the copyrights of another photographer, by creating very similar works. [0][1] I don't know if this has ever happened in US law. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Island_Collections_Ltd_v_New_English_Teas_Ltd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Island_Collections_Ltd_... [1] https://www.copyrightuser.org/educate/the-game-is-on/episode-1-case-file-1/ https://www.copyrightuser.org/educate/the-game-is-on/episode...
gnopgnip 4y ago
The case law in the US is favorable to the newer artist in many cases, the four factors of fair use would be in the newer artists favor for a one off piece of art based on a reference. Like with http://www.artistrights.info/cariou-v-prince http://www.artistrights.info/cariou-v-prince the works consisting of collages, with a guitar pasted over the original work was found to be fair use. In this case the transformative use was a bigger factor, but part of the work was exactly copied, not just derivative. Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp is more similar to this case. But in Leibovitz while the poses were the same there were several other factors that were changed to heighten the comedic effect.
jefftk 4y ago
> if her exact photo has been denied copyright protections I'd agree that's a problem That is my reading of the translations of the ruling, at the end of the thread. It's not "original" enough, and so it's completely unprotected.
layer8 4y ago
It’s not just “influenced by the original”. They clearly just mirror-flipped the original image and photoshopped it a bit.
- autoexec 4y ago
  > They clearly just mirror-flipped the original image and photoshopped it a bit. it's an oil panting on wood. Not a photoshop. Someone painted it.

glandium 4y ago

How is it only "inspired" when it's not only the same pose, but the same person and the same clothes, up to its individual folds. "Inspired" would be inviting a model to wear the same thing and take the pose, and painting that. Here, it's a reproduction of the mirrored picture, with different colors and trivial changes (like the earings). Calling this inspiration is utterly ridiculous.

autoexec 4y ago
> but the same person and the same clothes, up to its individual folds. It's not the same person. The face is very different, as is the hair. not the same folds either, look at the white cloth near the flower. It's also a painting and not a photograph. If a painter creates a painting of Grand Central Station has he violated the copyright of the architect? Artists must be able to create, by their own hand, their own versions of things depicted in other works of art or even of other artistic works themselves. (see for example https://publicdelivery.org/fernando-botero-mona-lisa/ https://publicdelivery.org/fernando-botero-mona-lisa/)
- glandium 4y ago
  Counter example: THE TOWER ILLUMINATED Controlled use The various illuminations of the Eiffel Tower (golden illumination, twinkling, beacon and events lighting) are protected. The use of the image of the Eiffel Tower at night is therefore subject to prior authorisation by the SETE. This use is subject to payment of rights, the amount of which is determined by the intended use, the media plan, etc. https://www.toureiffel.paris/en/business/use-image-of-eiffel-tower https://www.toureiffel.paris/en/business/use-image-of-eiffel...
  - pdntspa 4y ago
    This sort of copyright absurdity warrants flouting the rules as often as is realistically possible. It may be an overreach backed by law, but that makes it no less of an overreach.
    - glandium 4y ago
      Note, I don't have a strong opinion wrt copyright infringement in the case OP is about, but words are important. Let's not pretend it's "inspired".
  - autoexec 4y ago
    True, I do feel that some cases take copyright protection way too far and we're all worse off for it. Here's another example of that from the US: https://rpjlaw.com/blurred-lines-copying-songs-musical-style-enough-warrant-copyright-infringement/ https://rpjlaw.com/blurred-lines-copying-songs-musical-style... Overbroad copyright protections are often granted, but it's never a good thing for anyone except the shortsighted artists who stand to directly benefit from censoring their peers and preventing the rest of us from having a richer culture.
  - twic 4y ago
    This is a "freedom of panorama" thing, one of the few aspects of copyright which varies extensively across the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama
debesyla 4y ago
It's not a carbon copy and the changes aren't minimal - thus it's inspired, not copied. After all, copyright works for whole thing, not spare parts (technique, style or "idea" aren't copyrightable)...
- laserlight 4y ago
  > copyright works for whole thing No, this is wrong. Here's a counterexample [0]. [0] Structure, sequence and organization. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure,_sequence_and_organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure,_sequence_and_organi...
- esrauch 4y ago
  Essentially any movie adaptation of a book can't be copyright infringement based on this being the bar; even cases that keep many lines of dialog verbatim end up just being detail similar to keeping the exact same folds of fabric at the bottom.
  - autoexec 4y ago
    > Essentially any movie adaptation of a book can't be copyright infringement based on this being the bar; I'd agree with that. A movie adaptation (with changes) should be allowed under copyright because it's clearly transformative and creative. Copyright should protect against reproduction without compensation, it shouldn't be used to prevent new artistic works from being created even when they are based on existing works. That's how I feel about it anyway, although sadly the law we have today in the US would disagree.
fallinghawks 4y ago
I agree, it is far beyond "inspiration". Next to zero changes: same type of flowers, identical thinness of straps, hair up in a loose bun with strands spraying in very similar locations, folds in the fabric carbon-copy identical. Even the eyebrow, with its slight heaviness on the straight part, is the same. Dude made her eye a bit more slanted, wow. This is saying anyone can flip, photocopy, and color someone else's work, making the most nominal changes, and it's suddenly an "original."
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- wruza 4y ago
  Tbh, what I perceive as “art” in the original work is still unique and wasn’t copied into the reproduction. It’s a copy of hair, face and clothing configuration, which is non-unique and a strange subject for copyright. I mean this is obviously borderline, but still a subjective issue. If you like analogies, it’s like some pro photographer found a place, angle and hundreds of other parameters to shoot in the nature, copyrighted the image, and then someone geoguess’d that exact place next day and took a pic with their iphone or google maps street view.

pdntspa 4y ago

I agree. I am part of the local art community and there is this meme idea floating around that the artist owns everything about a work they make, even the idea. At present people are using this to bash on AI art and decry it as stolen. But this is mistaken, both from a legal sense (many aspects of a work are not copyrightable), and in a physics sense (you cannot control an idea in the minds of others, information wants to be free, and so on). I don't want to deny that AI artwork is potentially a threat, much in the way that a printing press was to scribes of the time or a camera to painters. And I understand the need to put food on the table. But the only form of protection available is limited at best, by design, and I think many of these people fail to see how they might be infringing on others' copyright under such a harsh and draconian interpretation of it.

buildbot 4y ago
As both an artist and an AI person for my dayjob, this is spot on. People are losing their minds (esp. on twitter ) but really it’s exactly identical to the painting to photography transition. I had an acquaintance tell me to either learn how to draw or commission work, when I expressed that Stable Diffusion was neat for people who might want to create visual art based on their text ideas - still requires human interaction, still art in my book. It was kind of a sad lack of reflection given that their own art reproduced trademarked media from certain spicy chili sauce brands.
HPMOR 4y ago
>"and in a physics sense (you cannot control an idea in the minds of other," I think we should add the caveat "yet", to your quote. I imagine it's physiological to control ideas in people's brains if you could accurately and correctly map neurons to people's thoughts.
- someweirdperson 4y ago
  Isn't the information stored in the EM-field the neurons create, not the neurons themselves?

GoofballJones 4y ago

Because what they did wasn't original. I've seen this pose, this "look", this everything thousands of times over before this person was even alive. To claim this whole thing is copy-writable is ludicrous. Now, the image in and of itself is unique and the other people taking it and just flipping it and saying suddenly "it's mine" is just as ludicrous.

MaxBarraclough 4y ago

> It's clearly directly influenced by the original, but if someone else wants to create something similar that's just art. It's what all artists do and always have done. Copyrights can on some occasions preclude someone from independently creating a very similar work. In the UK, a photographer was found to have infringed the copyrights of another photographer, by creating very similar works. [0][1] I don't know if this has ever happened in US law. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Island_Collections_Ltd_v_New_English_Teas_Ltd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Island_Collections_Ltd_... [1] https://www.copyrightuser.org/educate/the-game-is-on/episode-1-case-file-1/ https://www.copyrightuser.org/educate/the-game-is-on/episode...

gnopgnip 4y ago

The case law in the US is favorable to the newer artist in many cases, the four factors of fair use would be in the newer artists favor for a one off piece of art based on a reference. Like with http://www.artistrights.info/cariou-v-prince http://www.artistrights.info/cariou-v-prince the works consisting of collages, with a guitar pasted over the original work was found to be fair use. In this case the transformative use was a bigger factor, but part of the work was exactly copied, not just derivative. Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp is more similar to this case. But in Leibovitz while the poses were the same there were several other factors that were changed to heighten the comedic effect.

jefftk 4y ago

> if her exact photo has been denied copyright protections I'd agree that's a problem That is my reading of the translations of the ruling, at the end of the thread. It's not "original" enough, and so it's completely unprotected.

layer8 4y ago

It’s not just “influenced by the original”. They clearly just mirror-flipped the original image and photoshopped it a bit.

autoexec 4y ago
> They clearly just mirror-flipped the original image and photoshopped it a bit. it's an oil panting on wood. Not a photoshop. Someone painted it.