4 ms·
So a couple different things here: On one hand, it's funny that user "doedeere" thinks she had to give permission to the artist in order to use her picture in
by Dirlewanger 11y ago
So a couple different things here:
On one hand, it's funny that user "doedeere" thinks she had to give permission to the artist in order to use her picture in art. Gives off an air of entitlement if you ask me. On the other, I think it's a fair example of how little the average user is aware (read: doesn't give any attention to at all) of a free service's TOS and what is/isn't allowed, in addition the actual nature of posting stuff on the Internet. Need to educate yourselves, people (obviously not anyone browsing HN, but you know what I mean).
The fact that these pieces are selling for that much? Well, I'd say the suckers are the ones buying them. Maybe in 60 or so years they'll be considered something? Maybe not? Art's in the eye of the beholder, as it should be. If people want to wast...I mean spend that much on an enlarged screenshot, let them.
- patorjk 11y agoThis doesn't have anything to do with Instagram's TOS though. The artist is banking on his screenshots being considered "transformative". However, what this means is kind of grey. Does adding a comment under a picture add new value [1] to that picture? There have been cases brought where the art in question had much more transformation applied to it (examples: Harry Potter encyclopedia, Obama Hope Image). [1] http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/#the_transformative_factor_the_purpose_and_character_of_your_use http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/#...
- yincrash 11y agoThis has nothing to do with Instagram's TOS. This is an argument about whether or not this falls under the US's Fair Use doctrine to determine whether or not the instagram user can assert copyright over the images being used by Prince.