3 ms·
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
by 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 agoWhich 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 agoThis 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 agoThe 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 agoWarhol’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 agoIt'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 agoI 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 agoThat's not what copyright is. Copyright is on a particular work. It had nothing to do with protecting stylistic elements.
- kzrdude 4y agoWhat is "the work"? If you make the definition of the work too physical, it becomes impossible to violate copyright (can't clone matter).