3 ms·
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 a
by nemo44x 4y 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 4y 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 4y agoThe 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.