4 ms·

And the reaction among many, here, seems to be shock or disbelief that someone who's memorized Starry Night and then proceeded to reproduced the work would run

And the reaction among many, here, seems to be shock or disbelief that someone who's memorized Starry Night and then proceeded to reproduced the work would run afoul of copyright law.

Glyptodon 4y ago
I don't know, people training themselves by trying to emulate well known or successful artists and styles has long been a thing if my memory of Deviant Art 20 years ago is accurate. And most every comic con I've attended is overrun with examples of the same kind of thing even now. Or tattoo artists giving people tattoos of movies characters and scenes. Or the multiple times in school that an art assignment involved more or less copying or reinterpretation of an existing work. That said, with humans it's not like anyone tries to prevent us from having the capability, it's just that usually people know better. Otherwise going to art galleries would be problematic.
- BaseballPhysics 4y ago
  > I don't know, people training themselves by trying to emulate well known or successful artists and styles has long been a thing Which is not the same as memorizing and reproducing a work, which is equivalent to, say, memorizing and covering/performing a song, something which is well understood to be a violation of copyright law. > Or tattoo artists giving people tattoos of movies characters and scenes. Which violates copyright. > Or the multiple times in school that an art assignment involved more or less copying or reinterpretation of an existing work. Also violates copyright, but is probably covered by a fair use defense due to the scholarship aspect of the work.
pixl97 4y ago
Run afoul of copyright law how is the question. My wife works in design. It's amazingly easy to try to come up with a new logo design that somehow nearly exactly matches other existing logos that are in use by other companies. They have to spend a huge amount of time making sure their 'original work' doesn't violate someone else's copyright/trademark. Is 'creation' the act of violating copyright? I wouldn't think so. We tend to talk about copyright violation in light of distribution. Is the file transfer from the SD server to your browser an act of distribution? Who knows what the law thinks at this point.
- BaseballPhysics 4y ago
  > My wife works in design. It's amazingly easy to try to come up with a new logo design that somehow nearly exactly matches other existing logos that are in use by other companies. They have to spend a huge amount of time making sure their 'original work' doesn't violate someone else's copyright/trademark. > Is 'creation' the act of violating copyright? I wouldn't think so. It absolutely can be. There's numerous cases of courts finding cases of copyright violation due to accidental copying, particularly in the music industry. I know, that might sound unintuitive, but the law is the law: https://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/reese/reese_innocent_infringement.pdf https://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/reese/reese_innoce... > But since 1931, a defendant’s mental state has clearly not been relevant under U.S. copyright law to the question of liability for direct copyright infringement. As the Supreme Court stated that year, “[i]ntention to infringe is not essential under the Act.” So innocent infringers are just as liable as those who infringe knowingly or recklessly. As an aside, logo design, which you mentioned, actually comes with a whole other set of considerations, as you're less concerned about copyright and more about trademark, which is a whole different branch of IP law.

And the reaction among many, here, seems to be shock or disbelief that someone who's memorized Starry Night and then proceeded to reproduced the work would run afoul of copyright law.

Glyptodon 4y ago

I don't know, people training themselves by trying to emulate well known or successful artists and styles has long been a thing if my memory of Deviant Art 20 years ago is accurate. And most every comic con I've attended is overrun with examples of the same kind of thing even now. Or tattoo artists giving people tattoos of movies characters and scenes. Or the multiple times in school that an art assignment involved more or less copying or reinterpretation of an existing work. That said, with humans it's not like anyone tries to prevent us from having the capability, it's just that usually people know better. Otherwise going to art galleries would be problematic.

BaseballPhysics 4y ago
> I don't know, people training themselves by trying to emulate well known or successful artists and styles has long been a thing Which is not the same as memorizing and reproducing a work, which is equivalent to, say, memorizing and covering/performing a song, something which is well understood to be a violation of copyright law. > Or tattoo artists giving people tattoos of movies characters and scenes. Which violates copyright. > Or the multiple times in school that an art assignment involved more or less copying or reinterpretation of an existing work. Also violates copyright, but is probably covered by a fair use defense due to the scholarship aspect of the work.

pixl97 4y ago

Run afoul of copyright law how is the question. My wife works in design. It's amazingly easy to try to come up with a new logo design that somehow nearly exactly matches other existing logos that are in use by other companies. They have to spend a huge amount of time making sure their 'original work' doesn't violate someone else's copyright/trademark. Is 'creation' the act of violating copyright? I wouldn't think so. We tend to talk about copyright violation in light of distribution. Is the file transfer from the SD server to your browser an act of distribution? Who knows what the law thinks at this point.

BaseballPhysics 4y ago
> My wife works in design. It's amazingly easy to try to come up with a new logo design that somehow nearly exactly matches other existing logos that are in use by other companies. They have to spend a huge amount of time making sure their 'original work' doesn't violate someone else's copyright/trademark. > Is 'creation' the act of violating copyright? I wouldn't think so. It absolutely can be. There's numerous cases of courts finding cases of copyright violation due to accidental copying, particularly in the music industry. I know, that might sound unintuitive, but the law is the law: https://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/reese/reese_innocent_infringement.pdf https://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/reese/reese_innoce... > But since 1931, a defendant’s mental state has clearly not been relevant under U.S. copyright law to the question of liability for direct copyright infringement. As the Supreme Court stated that year, “[i]ntention to infringe is not essential under the Act.” So innocent infringers are just as liable as those who infringe knowingly or recklessly. As an aside, logo design, which you mentioned, actually comes with a whole other set of considerations, as you're less concerned about copyright and more about trademark, which is a whole different branch of IP law.