4 ms·

And clearly the Luxembourg copyright system doesn't work that way? Maybe in Luxembourg, copyright only exists in much more limited situations? Whether somethin

And clearly the Luxembourg copyright system doesn't work that way? Maybe in Luxembourg, copyright only exists in much more limited situations? Whether something should or should not be copyrightable in the moral sense is a very different conversation than in the legal sense and I don't really see why we should be restricted into believing that things that commonly require licenses should always be that way.

kuhewa 4y ago
Why just guess though? If the Law governing IP in Luxembourg only protected exact copies, the reasoning wouldn't have had to have been about the pose, it would have been that the painting wasn't and exactly copy of the photograph.
- ehhthing 4y ago
  I think the ruling is probably much more complicated than the simple statement that it was on pose alone. Whether or not the similarities between the original and derivative work meet the criteria for the Luxembourg equivalent of Fair Use is probably a better discussion. However either way, I see no reason to think about copyright in such a limited way. I don't think many people believe that copyright is only enforceable if two works are exactly the same. Rather I think they're simply discussing how inspiration and imitation is very common in art.
  - kuhewa 4y ago
    I'm not sure anyone is thinking of copyright 'in such a limited way' in this particular thread? the parent comment was regarding comments on this post implying or explicitly stating there isn't an issue because there isn't a material duplication.
zinekeller 4y ago
> And clearly the Luxembourg copyright system doesn't work that way? Maybe in Luxembourg, copyright only exists in much more limited situations? The problem is that Luxembourg's copyright regime should be a lot more stricter than, for example, US (this ruling is significantly different from other Luxembourgish rulings). I actually thought that this is a US ruling at first glance.
VanTheBrand 4y ago
The comments I’m talking about are not speaking about Luxembourg they are speaking (incorrectly) about the US and copyright in general. Also the Luxembourg system does work this way. In the case discussed here, they simply said the underlying work was itself not deserving of protection. Were it ruled deserving of protection, the derivative works would have been infringing.

kuhewa 4y ago

Why just guess though? If the Law governing IP in Luxembourg only protected exact copies, the reasoning wouldn't have had to have been about the pose, it would have been that the painting wasn't and exactly copy of the photograph.

ehhthing 4y ago
I think the ruling is probably much more complicated than the simple statement that it was on pose alone. Whether or not the similarities between the original and derivative work meet the criteria for the Luxembourg equivalent of Fair Use is probably a better discussion. However either way, I see no reason to think about copyright in such a limited way. I don't think many people believe that copyright is only enforceable if two works are exactly the same. Rather I think they're simply discussing how inspiration and imitation is very common in art.
- kuhewa 4y ago
  I'm not sure anyone is thinking of copyright 'in such a limited way' in this particular thread? the parent comment was regarding comments on this post implying or explicitly stating there isn't an issue because there isn't a material duplication.

zinekeller 4y ago

> And clearly the Luxembourg copyright system doesn't work that way? Maybe in Luxembourg, copyright only exists in much more limited situations? The problem is that Luxembourg's copyright regime should be a lot more stricter than, for example, US (this ruling is significantly different from other Luxembourgish rulings). I actually thought that this is a US ruling at first glance.

VanTheBrand 4y ago

The comments I’m talking about are not speaking about Luxembourg they are speaking (incorrectly) about the US and copyright in general. Also the Luxembourg system does work this way. In the case discussed here, they simply said the underlying work was itself not deserving of protection. Were it ruled deserving of protection, the derivative works would have been infringing.