4 ms·
I think that depends on how it’s done. If there’s actual visual representation ( bitmaps or FFT coefficients) copied around (and most importantly - more than w
by prpl 4y ago
I think that depends on how it’s done. If there’s actual visual representation ( bitmaps or FFT coefficients) copied around (and most importantly - more than what might be described as fair use), that would probably be true. If a highly accurate conceptual description is generated then an image generated on that, I would see no issue.
I don’t know how it is implemented for the software in question.
- rhizome 4y agoIANAL, but from my understanding of the points at issue, I think a court might be likely to find that a) sucking the image into RAM is a copy in the first place; b) the FFT/etc. would be a (first) derivative work; c) using a form of the original image sufficient to communicate to the alteration processes what it should be altering would constitute a copy; and/or d) identifying something as a de-copyrighted work will undercut any defenses. Here's an interesting answer apropos to all this: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/7250/could-i-remove-gplv2-from-this-algorithm-implementation https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/7250/could-i-...