11–20 of 60 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't? Maybe the API of a photograph or other piece of work is how you perceive or appreciate it... the aesthetic of it. In this sense what Warhol has done is transformative.
API stands for application programming interface. Or didn't you know?
Would it make sense to have multiple entities being able to have copyright on a single piece of work? In the Warhol case, maybe x% of the copyright to Warhol and y% to Prince? It would make the legal aspect of profiting off such works 10x more complicated. And determining the appropriate percentages for each "contributor" would be a nightmare, if not impossible. But would it be more fair in the end?
In some jurisdictions, the copyright law has a mechanism for professional associations to be responsible for collecting the copyright within a certain area. Now that I think about it, the model seems like it might be adaptable to software.
this argument doesn't make any sense. a photo doesn't have an API.
It doesn't? Maybe the API of a photograph or other piece of work is how you perceive or appreciate it... the aesthetic of it. In this sense what Warhol has done is transformative.
Where is the line between blatant copying and transformation? If I take some photograph and just change colors can I claim I changed the photo's perception and thus sent a unique message? Maybe, but it's all about ideas in my head, not the changed photo itself. Same goes about many Warhol's works. They are just slightly changed copies of someone else copyrighted works and must be accompanied by art critiques explanations to be appreciated in full.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it's really "stupid clickbait". The entire reason the Warhol Foundation went back to the appellate court was so they could cite Google v. Oracle as a new decision thus requiring review.
The title is not clickbait, the reason the Warhol Foundation is using is what I think the parent is arguing is "clickbait".
this argument doesn't make any sense. a photo doesn't have an API.
Would it make sense to have multiple entities being able to have copyright on a single piece of work? In the Warhol case, maybe x% of the copyright to Warhol and y% to Prince? It would make the legal aspect of profiting off such works 10x more complicated. And determining the appropriate percentages for each "contributor" would be a nightmare, if not impossible. But would it be more fair in the end?
No because then anybody could siphon ownership of a work away from its owner just by copying it without permission and with these kinds of modifications. Do many different versions and gain many portions of ownership.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The title is not clickbait, the reason the Warhol Foundation is using is what I think the parent is arguing is "clickbait".
That does not make any sense for any reasonable definition of clickbait.
Would it make sense to have multiple entities being able to have copyright on a single piece of work? In the Warhol case, maybe x% of the copyright to Warhol and y% to Prince? It would make the legal aspect of profiting off such works 10x more complicated. And determining the appropriate percentages for each "contributor" would be a nightmare, if not impossible. But would it be more fair in the end?
The copyright owner of the original owns that copyright, including of the elements incorporated into the derived work. The copyright to the creative elements of the derived work are controlled by the copyright holder of the derived work, which may have a longer period of validity than the original work copyright.
To distribute the derived work while the original copyright is in force requires permission (license) of the original copyright holder, or a determination that the derivation is a fair use, which the Warhol Foundation is seeking.