4 ms·

It's wild to me how different the standards are in other media. I doubt there'd be any hope of defending a case involving two things this similar, if the work i

It's wild to me how different the standards are in other media. I doubt there'd be any hope of defending a case involving two things this similar, if the work in question were a book or a song, for instance. Suits are brought and settled or won over works that are way more different and may not actually involve any deliberate copying at all, just some coincidences. I guess the standards are way looser for graphic art? [EDIT] I mean, imagine the musician saying "nah, I don't owe you anything, because I copied your song exactly, but by hand, and I shifted everything up a half step and increased the tempo vs. the reference recording, from 90bpm to 95bpm". LOL WUT? You'd obviously lose, it's not even a close call.

aidenn0 3y ago
Yeah, I look at what happened with Blurred Lines; if we applied that standard to visual media, there would be like 10 people that own the copyright to all visual art. For those who don't know: the accepted facts are that two of the writers of Blurred Lines specifically set out to make a song with the same "feel" as Got to Give it Up; the resulting song did not share chord progressions, melodies, or rhythms, yet a jury ruled (and verdict was maintained in appeals 2-1) that it infringed.
throw_498390 3y ago
What makes this case difficult is that the photographer doesn't have any rights to Prince's likeness, since she didn't create it. She only has rights to the framing and details of her photograph. In other words, her copyright is unusually "weak" in some abstract sense. Here's an analogy: imagine that I record a rendition of Amazing Grace. And then somebody else records another rendition of Amazing Grace that copies some of the particulars of my recording. Could that count as copyright infringement? Of course. But it's not obvious that it should, because the underlying work is mostly in the public domain.
- Juliate 3y ago
  You'd have to demonstrate/convince that the particulars of your recording are original and novel. If there was any prior equivalent, you might not be able to sustain your claim.
nemo44x 3y ago
A piece of fine art is thought to be transformative of the source material in these case - at least that's the argument. The key word is "appropriation". It's an entirely different thing all together. The music analogy doesn't really work because you're playing the same musical notes and "by hand" isn't really meaningful. It's still music and you are just copying it, not appropriating it.
- yamtaddle 3y ago
  > "by hand" isn't really meaningful. Agreed—but it suddenly is meaningful if Warhol copies by creating silk screens, versus someone, say, copying by playing someone else's song (but with some small, deliberate changes!) having learned it, let's say, by ear? It's precisely that large difference in standards that surprises me. You can be nowhere near creating a copy this similar, in other media, and get hit with a basically-unwinnable lawsuit. I had no idea how much looser copyright protection was in this particular media-world, versus every other one I'm aware of, before this case started making news and people were treating it as if the Warhol side weren't super-obviously doomed to settle or lose. That surprised me.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    The problem isn't the actual music you perform. You're not going to violate copyright on someone else's performance for the same reasons Warhol is safe. The problem is the songwriting part, the sequence of notes. And there's no real visual equivalent to that.

aidenn0 3y ago

Yeah, I look at what happened with Blurred Lines; if we applied that standard to visual media, there would be like 10 people that own the copyright to all visual art. For those who don't know: the accepted facts are that two of the writers of Blurred Lines specifically set out to make a song with the same "feel" as Got to Give it Up; the resulting song did not share chord progressions, melodies, or rhythms, yet a jury ruled (and verdict was maintained in appeals 2-1) that it infringed.

throw_498390 3y ago

What makes this case difficult is that the photographer doesn't have any rights to Prince's likeness, since she didn't create it. She only has rights to the framing and details of her photograph. In other words, her copyright is unusually "weak" in some abstract sense. Here's an analogy: imagine that I record a rendition of Amazing Grace. And then somebody else records another rendition of Amazing Grace that copies some of the particulars of my recording. Could that count as copyright infringement? Of course. But it's not obvious that it should, because the underlying work is mostly in the public domain.

Juliate 3y ago
You'd have to demonstrate/convince that the particulars of your recording are original and novel. If there was any prior equivalent, you might not be able to sustain your claim.

nemo44x 3y ago

A piece of fine art is thought to be transformative of the source material in these case - at least that's the argument. The key word is "appropriation". It's an entirely different thing all together. The music analogy doesn't really work because you're playing the same musical notes and "by hand" isn't really meaningful. It's still music and you are just copying it, not appropriating it.

yamtaddle 3y ago
> "by hand" isn't really meaningful. Agreed—but it suddenly is meaningful if Warhol copies by creating silk screens, versus someone, say, copying by playing someone else's song (but with some small, deliberate changes!) having learned it, let's say, by ear? It's precisely that large difference in standards that surprises me. You can be nowhere near creating a copy this similar, in other media, and get hit with a basically-unwinnable lawsuit. I had no idea how much looser copyright protection was in this particular media-world, versus every other one I'm aware of, before this case started making news and people were treating it as if the Warhol side weren't super-obviously doomed to settle or lose. That surprised me.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  The problem isn't the actual music you perform. You're not going to violate copyright on someone else's performance for the same reasons Warhol is safe. The problem is the songwriting part, the sequence of notes. And there's no real visual equivalent to that.