4 ms·

I would think the transformativeness defense used by appropriation artists might be applicable to establish that a photo of an out-of-copyright image is an “ori

I would think the transformativeness defense used by appropriation artists might be applicable to establish that a photo of an out-of-copyright image is an “original work of authorship.” Cue Richard Prince to put it to the test…

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
TFA explicitly addresses that was the question under consideration: > In his ruling (THJ v Sheridan, 2023), Lord Justice Arnold wrote that, for copyright to arise: “What is required is that the author was able to express their creative abilities in the production of the work by making free and creative choices so as to stamp the work created with their personal touch”. Importantly, he went on: “This criterion is not satisfied where the content of the work is dictated by technical considerations, rules or other constraints which leave no room for creative freedom”. In other words, if the aim of a museum photograph is to accurately reproduce a painting (which it must be), then it cannot acquire copyright. I.e. these museums were selling pictures of artworks that by definition needed to adhere to a true reproduction of the original as closely as possible. It wasn't a question of taking a picture of an out-of-copyright painting and applying some level of skill/artistic license to transform the original in some way.
knome 3y ago
It is my understanding that in collage works and the like, the artist has copyright over their creative inputs to the resulting piece, but does not gain any rights over the bits they cobbled the final together from. If I understand it correctly, even if the museum created a fancy collage for the side of the building, yes they would own that arrangement, but not any of the paintings which went into it. They still couldn't stop you from sharing images of the original works therein.
buccal 3y ago
If anyone is interested in copyright law I would recommend a free CopyrightX course from Harvard ( https://cyber.harvard.edu/teaching/copyrightx https://cyber.harvard.edu/teaching/copyrightx ). During the course you gain insight into the legislative side of copyright matters.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago

TFA explicitly addresses that was the question under consideration: > In his ruling (THJ v Sheridan, 2023), Lord Justice Arnold wrote that, for copyright to arise: “What is required is that the author was able to express their creative abilities in the production of the work by making free and creative choices so as to stamp the work created with their personal touch”. Importantly, he went on: “This criterion is not satisfied where the content of the work is dictated by technical considerations, rules or other constraints which leave no room for creative freedom”. In other words, if the aim of a museum photograph is to accurately reproduce a painting (which it must be), then it cannot acquire copyright. I.e. these museums were selling pictures of artworks that by definition needed to adhere to a true reproduction of the original as closely as possible. It wasn't a question of taking a picture of an out-of-copyright painting and applying some level of skill/artistic license to transform the original in some way.

knome 3y ago

It is my understanding that in collage works and the like, the artist has copyright over their creative inputs to the resulting piece, but does not gain any rights over the bits they cobbled the final together from. If I understand it correctly, even if the museum created a fancy collage for the side of the building, yes they would own that arrangement, but not any of the paintings which went into it. They still couldn't stop you from sharing images of the original works therein.

buccal 3y ago

If anyone is interested in copyright law I would recommend a free CopyrightX course from Harvard ( https://cyber.harvard.edu/teaching/copyrightx https://cyber.harvard.edu/teaching/copyrightx ). During the course you gain insight into the legislative side of copyright matters.