4 ms·

What are the copyright implications of this work? Is it legal to distribute the stitched together frames without audio? Do you think this project is going to

by cwkoss 3y ago

What are the copyright implications of this work? Is it legal to distribute the stitched together frames without audio? Do you think this project is going to get DMCAd off the internet?

glimshe 3y ago
Not sure about DMCA, but it's technically a derivative work, making it subject to copyright restrictions.
orra 3y ago
It's a derivative work. Is it legal, as a transformative use? Probably not. Andy Warhol's estate just lost a fair use case in the U.S. Supreme Court.
- gowld 3y ago
  Why not? Do you think anyone is going to say, "wow, I can save $3 by watching this crappy monochrome silent sketched copy of the movie!" ??? https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2023/may/18/andy-warhol-copyright-prince-paintings-lawsuit https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2023/may/18/andy-wa... Warhol copied a portrait. Totally different issue. "The supreme court [lol @ Anti-American Grauniad] focused on the specific use that allegedly infringed Goldsmith’s copyright – a license of Warhol’s work to Condé Nast – and said it was not transformative because it served the same commercial purpose as Goldsmith’s photo: to depict Prince in a magazine."
  - orra 3y ago
    > The supreme court [lol @ Anti-American Grauniad] It is nonsense to claim the Guardian is anti American because their style guide eschews capitalisation. They also refer to the “UK supreme court” and to “the king” without excess capitalisation.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
gnopgnip 3y ago
It's almost certainly transformative. DMCA takedown requests need to consider fair use. There is a lot of case law like Cariou v Prince It's also possible they got permission, or even that they were paid to make this. MSCHF is well funded.
BitWiseVibe 3y ago
MSCHF probably knows what they're doing in terms of copyright at this point, lol.

by cwkoss 3y ago

What are the copyright implications of this work? Is it legal to distribute the stitched together frames without audio? Do you think this project is going to get DMCAd off the internet?

glimshe 3y ago

Not sure about DMCA, but it's technically a derivative work, making it subject to copyright restrictions.

orra 3y ago

It's a derivative work. Is it legal, as a transformative use? Probably not. Andy Warhol's estate just lost a fair use case in the U.S. Supreme Court.

gowld 3y ago
Why not? Do you think anyone is going to say, "wow, I can save $3 by watching this crappy monochrome silent sketched copy of the movie!" ??? https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2023/may/18/andy-warhol-copyright-prince-paintings-lawsuit https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2023/may/18/andy-wa... Warhol copied a portrait. Totally different issue. "The supreme court [lol @ Anti-American Grauniad] focused on the specific use that allegedly infringed Goldsmith’s copyright – a license of Warhol’s work to Condé Nast – and said it was not transformative because it served the same commercial purpose as Goldsmith’s photo: to depict Prince in a magazine."
- orra 3y ago
  > The supreme court [lol @ Anti-American Grauniad] It is nonsense to claim the Guardian is anti American because their style guide eschews capitalisation. They also refer to the “UK supreme court” and to “the king” without excess capitalisation.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

gnopgnip 3y ago

It's almost certainly transformative. DMCA takedown requests need to consider fair use. There is a lot of case law like Cariou v Prince It's also possible they got permission, or even that they were paid to make this. MSCHF is well funded.

BitWiseVibe 3y ago

MSCHF probably knows what they're doing in terms of copyright at this point, lol.