4 ms·

Came here to say this. Lol. Estate suing estate, hillarious.

• kelnos 3y ago
  It's not, though. The plaintiff in this case is a (living) woman who took the original photo.
  • echelon 3y ago
    She's 75 herself, and the photo is older than I am.
    • ThrowawayTestr 3y ago
      The original author thinks it's infringement, not some IP holding company or her descendants.
      • echelon 3y ago
        Some people think the rich should be taxed more, some people think the poor are a drain on society. Some people think the earth is flat. We regurgitate the memes that get installed in us throughout life based on our experiences and the larger cultural zeitgeist. The copyright landscape looked a lot different in the 1950's when the author probably formed much of their world view. It was also updated throughout her life to reflect the will of large corporations and institutional copyright owners. There were no computers, no digital cameras, and certainly no generative AI applications. Many of the Supreme Court justices are also a product of this era and style of thinking. Content gets created so quickly now that the very concept of copyright seems an odd fit for the world we now find ourselves in. It's too long and too broad. People today like to remix, reference, reuse. Content is ephemeral and fleeting. It's much easier to make. The framework society uses is mutable. It changes and evolves as we collectively want it to. Copyright is something that seems very likely to change - it seems like it needs to change. After all, we don't find ourselves adhering to the guild rules of the 1500's labor market. Why should works from the early 1900's be unavailable to us? Or even 1970, 1980?
    • wlonkly 3y ago
      The distinction between "old" and "dead" seems important, though.