2 ms·

I can't agree. The changes are trivial[1]. An oil painting reproduction of a photograph is a derivative work, which makes this an unauthorized derivative work.

by djur 4y ago

I can't agree. The changes are trivial[1]. An oil painting reproduction of a photograph is a derivative work, which makes this an unauthorized derivative work. The amount of skill involved in creating the reproduction is totally irrelevant, and a derivative work being transformative does not remove the original creator's rights over the distribution of derivative works. It's worth noting here that the court in question did not address whether the painting is a derivative work, but whether the photograph itself was creative enough to earn copyright protection. The idea that it isn't is even more outrageous than the idea that the painting isn't a derivative work. [1]: https://twitter.com/zemotion/status/1602206042523590658 https://twitter.com/zemotion/status/1602206042523590658

autoexec 4y ago
I don't personally don't feel that the changes are trivial, since I find that I have a strong preference for the photo over the painting, but that's subjective. Either way, legally at least, you're right that many places wouldn't consider making artistic changes to be enough. I feel that artists should be free to create new derivative works however. All art is derivative and the purpose of copyright should be to protect artists from unauthorized reproduction, not prevent the creation of new artistic works. Copyright's original goal was to encourage the creation of new works, it's just been twisted over time into something that too often does the opposite of what it was created for. I agree that it's crazy that they didn't think photo should have any protection under copyright. It shouldn't matter how unoriginal it was, it's still clearly a work of art. It could get a little more complicated when you're talking about a photo of a very common thing (like a popular landmark) where it might be hard to tell the difference between two people's photos of the same thing, but a photo taken of a specific model at a specific time under specific lighting etc. that seems plenty unique enough to me.

by djur 4y ago

autoexec 4y ago

I don't personally don't feel that the changes are trivial, since I find that I have a strong preference for the photo over the painting, but that's subjective. Either way, legally at least, you're right that many places wouldn't consider making artistic changes to be enough. I feel that artists should be free to create new derivative works however. All art is derivative and the purpose of copyright should be to protect artists from unauthorized reproduction, not prevent the creation of new artistic works. Copyright's original goal was to encourage the creation of new works, it's just been twisted over time into something that too often does the opposite of what it was created for. I agree that it's crazy that they didn't think photo should have any protection under copyright. It shouldn't matter how unoriginal it was, it's still clearly a work of art. It could get a little more complicated when you're talking about a photo of a very common thing (like a popular landmark) where it might be hard to tell the difference between two people's photos of the same thing, but a photo taken of a specific model at a specific time under specific lighting etc. that seems plenty unique enough to me.