4 ms·

It’s not a copy so…. Let me ask this, if you paint a realistic copy of a photo is that copyright infringement? And where do you draw the line: https://www.lexi

It’s not a copy so…. Let me ask this, if you paint a realistic copy of a photo is that copyright infringement? And where do you draw the line: https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-andy-warhol-found-for-the-visual-arts-inc-v-goldsmith#:~:text=Conclusion%3A,establish%20infringement%20of%20her%20photographs https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-a....

colesantiago 4y ago
> It’s not a copy so…. You're saying it can't be a 1:1 Getty Images watermark but it also can't be generated in a vacuum, so how did that 'recognisable watermark that apparently for some reason resembles a Getty Images watermark but it isn't' get in there? Either way, under the law, derivative works are still under the copyright holder. > Copyright protection for the owner of the original copyright extends to derivative works. This means that the copyright owner of the original work also owns the rights to derivative works. Therefore, the owner of the copyright to the original work may bring a copyright infringement lawsuit against someone who creates a derivative work without permission. https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-are-derivative-works-under-copyright-law https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-are-derivative-works... But here is the kicker, it all comes down to, permission. https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/eula https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/eula > No Machine Learning, AI, or Biometric Technology Use. Unless explicitly authorised in a Getty Images invoice, sales order confirmation or licence agreement, you may not use content (including any caption information, keywords or other metadata associated with content) for any machine learning and/or artificial intelligence purposes, or for any technologies designed or intended for the identification of natural persons. Additionally, Getty Images does not represent or warrant that consent has been obtained for such uses with respect to model-released content.
Logans_Run 4y ago
Taking a picture of the Eiffel Tower at night is a copyright breach [1] as are pictures of Christ the Redeemer in Rio de Janeiro, Grauman's Chinese Theatre in Los Angeles, Radio City Music Hall in New York City, and St. Peter's Basilica in Rome (all of which except the Eiffel Tower I didn’t know about until looking up the provided reference) and all of them seem to me to be ludicrous but they ya go - I don't make the rules, only break them. [1] https://mymodernmet.com/eiffel-tower-copyright-law/ https://mymodernmet.com/eiffel-tower-copyright-law/
freejazz 4y ago
No, that's transformative because you painted it. Transforming it into data bits, on its own, isn't considered transformative from a fair use perspective.

colesantiago 4y ago

> It’s not a copy so…. You're saying it can't be a 1:1 Getty Images watermark but it also can't be generated in a vacuum, so how did that 'recognisable watermark that apparently for some reason resembles a Getty Images watermark but it isn't' get in there? Either way, under the law, derivative works are still under the copyright holder. > Copyright protection for the owner of the original copyright extends to derivative works. This means that the copyright owner of the original work also owns the rights to derivative works. Therefore, the owner of the copyright to the original work may bring a copyright infringement lawsuit against someone who creates a derivative work without permission. https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-are-derivative-works-under-copyright-law https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-are-derivative-works... But here is the kicker, it all comes down to, permission. https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/eula https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/eula > No Machine Learning, AI, or Biometric Technology Use. Unless explicitly authorised in a Getty Images invoice, sales order confirmation or licence agreement, you may not use content (including any caption information, keywords or other metadata associated with content) for any machine learning and/or artificial intelligence purposes, or for any technologies designed or intended for the identification of natural persons. Additionally, Getty Images does not represent or warrant that consent has been obtained for such uses with respect to model-released content.

Logans_Run 4y ago

Taking a picture of the Eiffel Tower at night is a copyright breach [1] as are pictures of Christ the Redeemer in Rio de Janeiro, Grauman's Chinese Theatre in Los Angeles, Radio City Music Hall in New York City, and St. Peter's Basilica in Rome (all of which except the Eiffel Tower I didn’t know about until looking up the provided reference) and all of them seem to me to be ludicrous but they ya go - I don't make the rules, only break them. [1] https://mymodernmet.com/eiffel-tower-copyright-law/ https://mymodernmet.com/eiffel-tower-copyright-law/

freejazz 4y ago

No, that's transformative because you painted it. Transforming it into data bits, on its own, isn't considered transformative from a fair use perspective.