3 ms·

> If it has value to them, what do you care? Does the value in your mind of <artpiece> drop when somebody creates <artpiece 2 in the style of artpiece>? That i

by thefz 2y ago

> If it has value to them, what do you care? Does the value in your mind of <artpiece> drop when somebody creates <artpiece 2 in the style of artpiece>? That is the whole point of copyright, yes.

jeffhuys 2y ago
I believe you can't copyright a _style_ of art. > no, you cannot copyright the Studio Ghibli art style itself. Copyright law doesn’t protect styles, techniques, or general aesthetics—like the hand-drawn, watercolor-inspired look with soft colors, detailed natural backgrounds, and whimsical vibes that Studio Ghibli is known for. It only protects specific, original works, like an individual film frame or character design from Spirited Away or My Neighbor Totoro. And your answer... Doesn't seem to cover my question, I think. So the point of copyright is that the value of the style doesn't degrade?
- numpad0 2y ago
  Copyright is also just an outright fabricated concept intended to protect interest of authors. It can be expanded or removed as needed. It's just like an API. The very definition can be changed upstream by patches. People seem to miss that.
  - jeffhuys 2y ago
    Yes, of course! By all means, update the law. I don’t think anyone misses that part of being a human. Any concept we think of is fabricated. But here’s the real meat of the issue I guess, how far do we wanna go? At what point SHOULD something be un-copyrightable? What describes a certain “style”? My style is black&white, can I copyright that? What would your diff be? :)
lotyrin 2y ago
Intellectual property is a consequence of capitalism, a sometimes necessary evil that is used to compel the consumers of intellectual output to pay into a system which produces it but which doesn't have any mechanism for compensating people for things that are not scarce in any way. If we valued and supported artists without just seeing them as laborers, we could have a remix culture where no one really owns anything and no rights are reserved.

by thefz 2y ago

> If it has value to them, what do you care? Does the value in your mind of <artpiece> drop when somebody creates <artpiece 2 in the style of artpiece>? That is the whole point of copyright, yes.

jeffhuys 2y ago

I believe you can't copyright a _style_ of art. > no, you cannot copyright the Studio Ghibli art style itself. Copyright law doesn’t protect styles, techniques, or general aesthetics—like the hand-drawn, watercolor-inspired look with soft colors, detailed natural backgrounds, and whimsical vibes that Studio Ghibli is known for. It only protects specific, original works, like an individual film frame or character design from Spirited Away or My Neighbor Totoro. And your answer... Doesn't seem to cover my question, I think. So the point of copyright is that the value of the style doesn't degrade?

numpad0 2y ago
Copyright is also just an outright fabricated concept intended to protect interest of authors. It can be expanded or removed as needed. It's just like an API. The very definition can be changed upstream by patches. People seem to miss that.
- jeffhuys 2y ago
  Yes, of course! By all means, update the law. I don’t think anyone misses that part of being a human. Any concept we think of is fabricated. But here’s the real meat of the issue I guess, how far do we wanna go? At what point SHOULD something be un-copyrightable? What describes a certain “style”? My style is black&white, can I copyright that? What would your diff be? :)

lotyrin 2y ago

Intellectual property is a consequence of capitalism, a sometimes necessary evil that is used to compel the consumers of intellectual output to pay into a system which produces it but which doesn't have any mechanism for compensating people for things that are not scarce in any way. If we valued and supported artists without just seeing them as laborers, we could have a remix culture where no one really owns anything and no rights are reserved.