11 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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 agoI'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.