21–30 of 60 posts
What is the "interface" of an image and what is the "implementation"? In the Oracle case, the terms were clear. The interface is the set of rules that bind the implementation and its consumers. In the case of an image, this is inapplicable. One could try to determine the size of the image, its colors, and other physical parameters. But in the end, I fail to develop a useful abstraction that could serve as "interface"…
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".
I explained down thread what I had meant to say.
Copying code. That's seems more duplication for strictly the original intended purpose.
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?
You mean Goldsmith, not Prince? 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.
I don't think the situation you describe applies however. Someone wouldn't be able to siphon away ownership by using someone else's work. The person whose work is being used in the new work would be able to gain partial ownership of the new work. The author of the new work would only have ownership of their unique contributions, not ownership of the original work's contributions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That does not make any sense for any reasonable definition of clickbait.
I understand that the WF is incorrectly using the Java API decision (and tying it to media's favorite punching bag by citing google) but the Hollywood Reporter didn't have to go along -- they wrote a perfectly good article that didn't need that title.
Interesting take from the Andy Warhol Foundation. Warhol could have drawn that from memory. He used an impression he had of existing source material (the photo) and changed it. He didn't copy it and then add on to it. It's an original work of art that didn't exist before. Copying code. That's seems more duplication for strictly the original intended purpose.
> "those 11,500 lines, however, are only 0.4 percent of the entire API at issue, which consists of 2.85 million total lines. In considering "the amount and substantiality of the portion used" in this case, the 11,500 lines of code should be viewed as one small part of the considerably greater whole...
Andy Warhol museum's lawyers are making a PR play maybe. I don't think they're going to get very far in court with it, I don't see much similarity, just starting there.
[Also, yes, let's talk about the fact that the Supreme Court is still confused about what "API" means, calling the entire Java codebase "the API". That whole case was a mess of mistaken conceptual understanding of what software and APIs are and how they work. But anyway.]
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 fundamental problem is likely because of issues with the arts under capitalism. Because authors need people to purchase their particular works to make money, royalties by necessity need to be paid and lines need to be drawn over what is "original" or not. This is not the only system that can fund the arts; there is state funding, patron style funding, etc. where authors are not paid on the basis of each individual work, but the collective impact of their works.