3 ms·
The difference is that Fairey used a copy of the original Obama photograph in his work. Thus he violated the copyright of the photographer, Mannie Garcia. In Z
by jdkee 4y ago
The difference is that Fairey used a copy of the original Obama photograph in his work. Thus he violated the copyright of the photographer, Mannie Garcia.
In Zhang's case, there is no evidence that a copy of the original photograph by Zhang was included in the derivative work.
Therefore no infringement. At least under U.S. law.
EDIT_ See https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf
- abetusk 4y agoI guess one way to look at it is, if the original work (the photograph) was in the public domain and the derivative work was created (the painting), would the artist who created the painting still be allowed to claim copyright over it. But I still don't understand about Fairey. How did he use the original? Even if he traced outlines to create his image from a photograph, it's still "creating a drawing based on a photograph".
- andirk 4y agoYour question encapsulates the issue: where do we draw the line? To see copyright laws whether the letter or the spirit of the law is left to pretty murky opinion maybe moreso than other case law. Traced a copyrighted photo, now it's new, but it's heavily derived from someone else's copyrighted IP, etc. What about Andy Warhol's Marilyn Monroe screenprints https://www.masterworksfineart.com/artists/andy-warhol/screen-print/marilyn-monroe-marilyn-1967-1-2/id/W-7933 https://www.masterworksfineart.com/artists/andy-warhol/scree... ? Original or copyright infringement?
- abetusk 4y agoYeah, so maybe it's a lot murkier then we all understand. From a previous response, it looks like this case sidestepped the issue by ruling the photograph was not original enough so didn't fall under copyright protection (I guess?). I think the Prince prints from Andy Warhol are a better example [0]. I see a lot of articles from Oct 2022, so is this case still being tried? Copyright is a quagmire of "rule-of-thumb" policies and, in my opinion, often invalid assumptions. Understanding what and what does not fall under copyright protection is really about what the legal system understands it to be and how to convince a judge. I don't really like arguing "what's correct" when it comes to copyright violation as that's irrelevant, it's really about "what the legal system thinks is correct". One of the few pieces on copyright that's made sense to me is the "What Colour are your bits?" article by mksala [1] which, if I'm remember correctly, is arguing that it's less about the artifact produced than the provenance of how it was created. [0] https://www.npr.org/2022/10/12/1127508725/prince-andy-warhol-supreme-court-copyright https://www.npr.org/2022/10/12/1127508725/prince-andy-warhol... [1] https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23
- VanTheBrand 4y agoI think you are misunderstanding what a derivative work is and what is required for something to be considered one. Read the examples in the link you posted. Many of these don’t incorporate a literal direct copy of the underlying work.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]