3 ms·
It was a picture of Prince, modified by coloring and outlining. But it's use (selling it) was again to represent Prince, for commerce, not some other subtle mea
by JoeAltmaier 3y ago
It was a picture of Prince, modified by coloring and outlining. But it's use (selling it) was again to represent Prince, for commerce, not some other subtle meaning/parody/social commentary. I can see the argument in favor of the photographer.
- IshKebab 3y agoYeah this definitely doesn't seem unreasonable. It's the same photo, just stylised. I think copyright should protect that.
- tinglymintyfrsh 3y agoRotoscoping is similar. Perhaps Campbell soup shouldn't be Xerox or art either?
- dcow 3y agoNow the question is, "how does one suitably distinguish a work from the original?". Now giving it a new expression is not enough. Now it must be used also for a different purpose? This is just way more confusing... not less.
- perrygeo 3y agoWas this "new expression" meant to compete in the same economic market? If I take a photo, and you modify it and try to pass it off and sell it as yet another photo - clearly not distinguished and derivative. If I take a photo, and you create an artwork or video game character based off it - clearly distinguished; I don't have any right to your IP. If I take a photo, and it inspires you to take a similar photo for your personal collection - clearly distinguished. If I take a photo, and it inspires you to take a similar photo and you decide to sell it as your creation... ambiguous, as there is a market conflict.