3 ms·

> Drawing a copy of a copyrighted picture from memory, and then distributing that copy, would certainly normally be copyright infringement. In US law, there is

> Drawing a copy of a copyrighted picture from memory, and then distributing that copy, would certainly normally be copyright infringement. In US law, there is a nuance between Copyright and Trademark. > Drawing a copy of a copyrighted picture from memory, and then distributing that copy Would not necessarily be copyright infringement (it depends on a judge). For example, why Taylor Swift is able to re-record her music (the copyright is owned by a recording studio), as is, and can distribute the new version as "Taylor's Version" because she owns the copyright on the new version. > (A logo may not be enough of a creative work to be copyrightable, but I assume that's not what you're getting at). A logo is actually MORE protectable, through Trademark. Trademark is significantly MORE protected than Copyright. In your example, if someone draws from memory a logo, they actually own the copyright, but it is still Trademark infringement and the trademark owner will be protected.

lmm 3y ago
> In US law, there is a nuance between Copyright and Trademark. It's not a nuance, it's a completely separate legal regime, and not what this conversation is about. > Would not necessarily be copyright infringement (it depends on a judge). Every law can be challenged in court, but a copy of a picture as-is is a pretty clear-cut case. > For example, why Taylor Swift is able to re-record her music (the copyright is owned by a recording studio), as is, and can distribute the new version as "Taylor's Version" because she owns the copyright on the new version. Nope. She's able to because there is a compulsory license for covers of songs that have already been published - something very different from them not being protected by copyright - and/or because she owns some of the rights. She may well be paying royalties on them. That compulsory license regime is specific to recorded music and does not apply to pictures. > A logo is actually MORE protectable, through Trademark. Trademark is significantly MORE protected than Copyright. "More" is a simplification; trademark laws are quite different from copyright laws, stronger in some ways and weaker in others (e.g. you can lose a trademark by not enforcing it, whereas you cannot lose a copyright that way). In any case, that's a distraction from the current topic.

lmm 3y ago

> In US law, there is a nuance between Copyright and Trademark. It's not a nuance, it's a completely separate legal regime, and not what this conversation is about. > Would not necessarily be copyright infringement (it depends on a judge). Every law can be challenged in court, but a copy of a picture as-is is a pretty clear-cut case. > For example, why Taylor Swift is able to re-record her music (the copyright is owned by a recording studio), as is, and can distribute the new version as "Taylor's Version" because she owns the copyright on the new version. Nope. She's able to because there is a compulsory license for covers of songs that have already been published - something very different from them not being protected by copyright - and/or because she owns some of the rights. She may well be paying royalties on them. That compulsory license regime is specific to recorded music and does not apply to pictures. > A logo is actually MORE protectable, through Trademark. Trademark is significantly MORE protected than Copyright. "More" is a simplification; trademark laws are quite different from copyright laws, stronger in some ways and weaker in others (e.g. you can lose a trademark by not enforcing it, whereas you cannot lose a copyright that way). In any case, that's a distraction from the current topic.