3 ms·

right, anyone can use a lightscreen, put a piece of paper over Goldsmiths photo and then trace it with either pens or paint. Where you run into issues is trying

right, anyone can use a lightscreen, put a piece of paper over Goldsmiths photo and then trace it with either pens or paint. Where you run into issues is trying to say that the copy you made is yours and licensing it, the ruling seems pretty fair.

archontes 3y ago
US law as written does not permit this. Copyright restricts reproduction and the production of derivative work except for the reasons listed in fair use. Personal use isn't among those reasons (setting the US apart from like 20 other countries). It's just de facto legal because of the difficulty of detecting those instances and the presumably nil return in litigating them.
- tracker1 3y ago
  In this case it wasn't for personal use... and even beyond just selling the original (derivative creation) itself. Where it came afoul was when they tried to license the derivative work in ways that were in conflict and reduced the market value to the original work.
- davorak 3y ago
  > right, anyone can use a lightscreen, put a piece of paper over Goldsmiths photo and then trace it with either pens or paint. Where you run into issues is trying to say that the copy you made is yours and licensing it, the ruling seems pretty fair. This seems like it would be fair use. SeanLuke's comment[1] does a brief analysis that looks correct. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35994306 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35994306
  - archontes 3y ago
    I'm sure that copying a work for your private consumption would be considered non-commercial in nature, but his assertion that it doesn't affect the potential market for the item wouldn't hold up. It's clearly affecting the market for the original as you are removing yourself from the market for it. Creating a copy for your own consumption harms the copyright holder's ability to market a reproduction to you.
    - davorak 3y ago
      >It's clearly affecting the market for the original as you are removing yourself from the market for it. Creating a copy for your own consumption harms the copyright holder's ability to market a reproduction to you. > Courts have found exactly that relationship in other contexts as well. My rough understanding is that normally there has to be some minimal amount of damage and the effect has to be measurable. I am not familiar with the court cases but the term has been quote elsewhere in the comments, De minimis[1]. I also think the argument can be made that the person who makes a personal reproduction was never in the market for the original so there is not commercial impact. Or at least it is an easy argument to make. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis#Copyright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis#Copyright

archontes 3y ago

US law as written does not permit this. Copyright restricts reproduction and the production of derivative work except for the reasons listed in fair use. Personal use isn't among those reasons (setting the US apart from like 20 other countries). It's just de facto legal because of the difficulty of detecting those instances and the presumably nil return in litigating them.

tracker1 3y ago
In this case it wasn't for personal use... and even beyond just selling the original (derivative creation) itself. Where it came afoul was when they tried to license the derivative work in ways that were in conflict and reduced the market value to the original work.
davorak 3y ago
> right, anyone can use a lightscreen, put a piece of paper over Goldsmiths photo and then trace it with either pens or paint. Where you run into issues is trying to say that the copy you made is yours and licensing it, the ruling seems pretty fair. This seems like it would be fair use. SeanLuke's comment[1] does a brief analysis that looks correct. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35994306 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35994306
- archontes 3y ago
  I'm sure that copying a work for your private consumption would be considered non-commercial in nature, but his assertion that it doesn't affect the potential market for the item wouldn't hold up. It's clearly affecting the market for the original as you are removing yourself from the market for it. Creating a copy for your own consumption harms the copyright holder's ability to market a reproduction to you.
  - davorak 3y ago
    >It's clearly affecting the market for the original as you are removing yourself from the market for it. Creating a copy for your own consumption harms the copyright holder's ability to market a reproduction to you. > Courts have found exactly that relationship in other contexts as well. My rough understanding is that normally there has to be some minimal amount of damage and the effect has to be measurable. I am not familiar with the court cases but the term has been quote elsewhere in the comments, De minimis[1]. I also think the argument can be made that the person who makes a personal reproduction was never in the market for the original so there is not commercial impact. Or at least it is an easy argument to make. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis#Copyright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis#Copyright