4 ms·

> That you would copy an image, apply a random filter, then call it your own and sell it, is ridiculous. It's pretty easy to counter your assertion by simply s

by dcow 3y ago

> That you would copy an image, apply a random filter, then call it your own and sell it, is ridiculous. It's pretty easy to counter your assertion by simply saying, "I find no value in the original work but I find value in Warhol's rendition". Since the argument is that the court is supposedly defending Goldsmith's right to prosper from her works, then you cannot say that she would have benefitted unilaterally because I would not have paid her for her art, only Warhol. Personally I don't care for Warhol much and I'm using the royal I, but to say that applying a filter to an image cannot create a new work is, I think, preposterous. Personally I don't think this case has clarified "fair use" one bit. All it does is add more confusion into the mix. So if Warhol hadn't commercialized the work, would it have been fair use? That's now an open question after reading the supreme court's majority opinion/ruling. All this case does is demonstrate that in this specific instance 7 of 9 judges didn't obviously see how Warhol's work transformed the original source material enough to constitute a new work, or Warhol foundations' lawyers didn't make it obvious enough. And it now throws into the mix that "fair use" is not solely dependent on the idea of transforming a work, it's in fact way more complicated and so yes let's open the flood gates for a bunch of new copyright cases arguing that one artist, even though they did transform an original work, was too adjacent and not distinguished enough to constitute fair use. I mean honestly I'm super confused how to interpret fair use now. > But the real scandal is that copyright survives the artist. Marvin Gaye, Andy Warhol... Dead guys. So called "estates"... Insects feeding on corpses. Agree.

ygjb 3y ago
so.... no intergenerational wealth transfer then? if estates can't pass on intellectual property, then why should they be allowed to pass on physical property? If they can pass on physical property, then why not intellectual property, at least within the legally defined (and IMO far too long) windows of protection?
- anothernewdude 3y ago
  It's almost like Intellectual property is some kind of made up thing that isn't really property, and people can make a distinction between actual property and IP. Weird, huh?
- everforward 3y ago
  It's in the constitution: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" The question is does the heritability of IP promote the progress of science and useful arts, or does it simply enrich heirs? I can see the argument that people wouldn't create art or do science if they couldn't profit from it, but it's much greyer whether they wouldn't do it if they couldn't pass it to their heirs.
  - qzw 3y ago
    It seems that any language stating intentions in the Constitution has only as much relevance to real laws as the relative strength of the lobbyists arguing for/against the provision in question, e.g. "A well regulated militia..."
  - jrajav 3y ago
    I'm not an expert on the science part, but as far as the arts are concerned, IP being inheritable not only does not promote progress, it actively harms it. See: The Marvin Gaye estate and the damage they wreak on the music industry by thrashing about every few years with another cash grab lawsuit based on hamfisted and incompetent explanations of music theory.
    - chrismcb 3y ago
      I don't think that is a very good example of active harm due to inheritance. Marvin gaye could have done the exact same thing if he was still alive.
      - mr_toad 3y ago
        Marvin Gaye was making music, which is to be encouraged. His estate makes nothing.
  - mold_aid 3y ago
    >or does it simply enrich heirs? This was one of the original arguments in favor of copyright, except in reverse, as the poverty of heirs was an argument in favor of copyright: When, in 1749, Thomas Newton's (1704-1782) edition of Paradise Lost was published, it carried details about the impoverished circumstances in which Elizabeth Foster, Milton's granddaughter, lived.[33] The account gave rise to a performance of Milton's Comus at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, from which Elizabeth received £130, the profits of the evening. When aligned with the fact that Milton himself received only £20 from Simmons, the tale became a staple in subsequent accounts of neglected genius and avaricious publishers. Deazley, R. (2008) ‘Commentary on Milton's Contract 1667', in Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), eds L. Bently & M. Kretschmer, www.copyrighthistory.org
- maclockard 3y ago
  FWIW I'm not sure analogies between intellectual property and actual property really work, since they are pretty fundamentally different if you compare the specifics.
- moomoo11 3y ago
  I’m against it until I’m in that situation myself. And if I am I’m probably not passing on all my wealth to my family besides a really healthy trust.. because if they can’t manage to stand on their two feet and make hella gains with a few million dollars they are losers imo. I personally started with $0 and have managed to do well enough for myself thus far as a swe and pursuing some business ideas. I know people who can’t do shit with millions. Rather have the money go to St Jude or some other charity.
  - graderjs 3y ago
    That's a horrible opinion to have of your family. Do you really have kids and a spouse? Why do you get to "judge" what they "do" with it? They're your family. They can live beyond your dreams of what's possible, you can't proscribe or foresee what they can do. You should want to support them, and make their life easy, and pass on your gains were you to die, right? How can you think giving it to some random charity is better than passing it to your own blood? That's a poverty of family love, to me.
    - jrajav 3y ago
      Did you miss the "with a few million dollars" part? That's more than enough money to be comfortable for your entire life, several lives really, plus enough capital to start any kind of business your passion leads you to. I truly don't think the viewpoint GP expressed is incompatible with familial love and setting up a great life for your children.
      - graderjs 3y ago
        I did miss that as being significant but did read it: yet based on the attitude displayed, it's not entirely clear that's in the cards. It seems the commenter is more talking about her/his idea of a "principle" whereby we can "judge a person's value (and eligibility to inherit from the commenter)" by what they have done / would do with such money. This person seems to suggest they themselves have high value in that regard, and seems to suggest their family does not. To me, it wasn't clear the commenter intends to leave them "a few million" as you seem to suggest.
- Leo_Germond 3y ago
  As you said, you can pass physical property, why would you need that to be extended to other area on top of it ? I mean you would think that inheriting the actual capital generated by the art pieces, on top of the unsold original pieces, would be enough as far as money goes (moral right is different, I see why you would want to inherit that). It's a bit as if I were able to claim a salary for my dead relatives because, you know, I used to live off of that...
  - bryanrasmussen 3y ago
    >it's a bit as if I were able to claim a salary for my dead relatives because, you know, I used to live off of that yeah but it's less of a bit that than it is a bit that your parents owned physical property and intellectual property and when they died you inherit the physical property so why not the intellectual property.
kens 3y ago
> Personally I don't think this case has clarified "fair use" one bit. Having read various fair use decisions over many years, I think it's reasonable to conclude that fair use law is indeterminant and incoherent. Courts try to apply the four fair use factors and maintain consistency with previous decisions, but it's just a mess. If you look at this case, the district court decided it was fair use, the appeals court decided it wasn't, and the Supreme Court agreed it wasn't but with a 7-2 split. The point is that even expert judges can't agree. It's kind of hopeless to try to make sense of fair use law.
- bryanrasmussen 3y ago
  > I think it's reasonable to conclude that fair use law is indeterminant and incoherent Logically speaking fair use would have to have some degree of indeterminance and incoherence given that there is not mathematical formula detailing specifically how much change is needed for transformation in relation to commercializing that change. Without such a formula there will always be edge cases that will look wacky in relation to everything else.
specialist 3y ago
> Personally I don't think this case has clarified "fair use" one bit. All it does is add more confusion into the mix. The Roberts Court in a nutshell. At least they made a ruling. Versus slipping this case thru the emergency shadow docket.
bmitc 3y ago
> It's pretty easy to counter your assertion by simply saying, "I find no value in the original work but I find value in Warhol's rendition". Finding value is not a concern of the various copyright and IP infringements though. Nearly any copy will find value, as that was the point of copying it in the first place.

by dcow 3y ago

ygjb 3y ago

so.... no intergenerational wealth transfer then? if estates can't pass on intellectual property, then why should they be allowed to pass on physical property? If they can pass on physical property, then why not intellectual property, at least within the legally defined (and IMO far too long) windows of protection?

anothernewdude 3y ago
It's almost like Intellectual property is some kind of made up thing that isn't really property, and people can make a distinction between actual property and IP. Weird, huh?
everforward 3y ago
It's in the constitution: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" The question is does the heritability of IP promote the progress of science and useful arts, or does it simply enrich heirs? I can see the argument that people wouldn't create art or do science if they couldn't profit from it, but it's much greyer whether they wouldn't do it if they couldn't pass it to their heirs.
- qzw 3y ago
  It seems that any language stating intentions in the Constitution has only as much relevance to real laws as the relative strength of the lobbyists arguing for/against the provision in question, e.g. "A well regulated militia..."
- jrajav 3y ago
  I'm not an expert on the science part, but as far as the arts are concerned, IP being inheritable not only does not promote progress, it actively harms it. See: The Marvin Gaye estate and the damage they wreak on the music industry by thrashing about every few years with another cash grab lawsuit based on hamfisted and incompetent explanations of music theory.
  - chrismcb 3y ago
    I don't think that is a very good example of active harm due to inheritance. Marvin gaye could have done the exact same thing if he was still alive.
    - mr_toad 3y ago
      Marvin Gaye was making music, which is to be encouraged. His estate makes nothing.
- mold_aid 3y ago
  >or does it simply enrich heirs? This was one of the original arguments in favor of copyright, except in reverse, as the poverty of heirs was an argument in favor of copyright: When, in 1749, Thomas Newton's (1704-1782) edition of Paradise Lost was published, it carried details about the impoverished circumstances in which Elizabeth Foster, Milton's granddaughter, lived.[33] The account gave rise to a performance of Milton's Comus at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, from which Elizabeth received £130, the profits of the evening. When aligned with the fact that Milton himself received only £20 from Simmons, the tale became a staple in subsequent accounts of neglected genius and avaricious publishers. Deazley, R. (2008) ‘Commentary on Milton's Contract 1667', in Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), eds L. Bently & M. Kretschmer, www.copyrighthistory.org
maclockard 3y ago
FWIW I'm not sure analogies between intellectual property and actual property really work, since they are pretty fundamentally different if you compare the specifics.
moomoo11 3y ago
I’m against it until I’m in that situation myself. And if I am I’m probably not passing on all my wealth to my family besides a really healthy trust.. because if they can’t manage to stand on their two feet and make hella gains with a few million dollars they are losers imo. I personally started with $0 and have managed to do well enough for myself thus far as a swe and pursuing some business ideas. I know people who can’t do shit with millions. Rather have the money go to St Jude or some other charity.
- graderjs 3y ago
  That's a horrible opinion to have of your family. Do you really have kids and a spouse? Why do you get to "judge" what they "do" with it? They're your family. They can live beyond your dreams of what's possible, you can't proscribe or foresee what they can do. You should want to support them, and make their life easy, and pass on your gains were you to die, right? How can you think giving it to some random charity is better than passing it to your own blood? That's a poverty of family love, to me.
  - jrajav 3y ago
    Did you miss the "with a few million dollars" part? That's more than enough money to be comfortable for your entire life, several lives really, plus enough capital to start any kind of business your passion leads you to. I truly don't think the viewpoint GP expressed is incompatible with familial love and setting up a great life for your children.
    - graderjs 3y ago
      I did miss that as being significant but did read it: yet based on the attitude displayed, it's not entirely clear that's in the cards. It seems the commenter is more talking about her/his idea of a "principle" whereby we can "judge a person's value (and eligibility to inherit from the commenter)" by what they have done / would do with such money. This person seems to suggest they themselves have high value in that regard, and seems to suggest their family does not. To me, it wasn't clear the commenter intends to leave them "a few million" as you seem to suggest.
Leo_Germond 3y ago
As you said, you can pass physical property, why would you need that to be extended to other area on top of it ? I mean you would think that inheriting the actual capital generated by the art pieces, on top of the unsold original pieces, would be enough as far as money goes (moral right is different, I see why you would want to inherit that). It's a bit as if I were able to claim a salary for my dead relatives because, you know, I used to live off of that...
- bryanrasmussen 3y ago
  >it's a bit as if I were able to claim a salary for my dead relatives because, you know, I used to live off of that yeah but it's less of a bit that than it is a bit that your parents owned physical property and intellectual property and when they died you inherit the physical property so why not the intellectual property.

kens 3y ago

> Personally I don't think this case has clarified "fair use" one bit. Having read various fair use decisions over many years, I think it's reasonable to conclude that fair use law is indeterminant and incoherent. Courts try to apply the four fair use factors and maintain consistency with previous decisions, but it's just a mess. If you look at this case, the district court decided it was fair use, the appeals court decided it wasn't, and the Supreme Court agreed it wasn't but with a 7-2 split. The point is that even expert judges can't agree. It's kind of hopeless to try to make sense of fair use law.

bryanrasmussen 3y ago
> I think it's reasonable to conclude that fair use law is indeterminant and incoherent Logically speaking fair use would have to have some degree of indeterminance and incoherence given that there is not mathematical formula detailing specifically how much change is needed for transformation in relation to commercializing that change. Without such a formula there will always be edge cases that will look wacky in relation to everything else.

specialist 3y ago

> Personally I don't think this case has clarified "fair use" one bit. All it does is add more confusion into the mix. The Roberts Court in a nutshell. At least they made a ruling. Versus slipping this case thru the emergency shadow docket.

bmitc 3y ago

> It's pretty easy to counter your assertion by simply saying, "I find no value in the original work but I find value in Warhol's rendition". Finding value is not a concern of the various copyright and IP infringements though. Nearly any copy will find value, as that was the point of copying it in the first place.