Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Does Andy Warhol get same copyright treatment as Google code?

hollywoodreporter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 60 posts

Re: Does Andy Warhol get same copyright treatment as Google code?

#31

Post by ipaddr »

Jaygles wrote: post #24
exporectomy wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 did mistakenly state Prince instead of Goldsmith. But silly enough that sort of plays into my hypothetical. Prince would own his likeness, which he would use to claim partial ownership of Goldsmith's photo. And Goldsmith and Prince would have a claim on Warhol's usage of the photo/likeness. I don't think the situation you describe applies however. Someone wouldn't be able to siphon away ownership by using someone e…

Prince's twin brother or someone who looks like prince either naturally or through surgery could make a likeness claim. There might be a few holes in this plan.

Re: Does Andy Warhol get same copyright treatment as Google code?

#32

Post by spullara »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #6

Quoting Google v. Oracle is really grasping at straws in my opinion. The SCOTUS opinion in Google v. Oracle was actually quite insightful and clear in that the need for the "line-for-line" copying of just the API declarations was the bare minimum needed for interoperability in the world of software. None of those concerns exist in this case of Warhol copying a photo of Prince. There may certainly be other reasonable…

Since the ruling actually mentions Warhol using commercial advertisements in his artwork I'm somewhat convinced by their argument.

From the ruling:

In answering this question, we have used the word “transformative” to describe a copying use that adds something new and important. Campbell, 510 U. S., at 579. An Cite as: 593 U. S. ____ (2021) 25 Opinion of the Court “‘artistic painting’” might, for example, fall within the scope of fair use even though it precisely replicates a copyrighted “‘advertising logo to make a comment about consumerism.’”

Re: Does Andy Warhol get same copyright treatment as Google code?

#33

Post by mattmanser »

spullara wrote: post #32
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #6

Quoting Google v. Oracle is really grasping at straws in my opinion. The SCOTUS opinion in Google v. Oracle was actually quite insightful and clear in that the need for the "line-for-line" copying of just the API declarations was the bare minimum needed for interoperability in the world of software. None of those concerns exist in this case of Warhol copying a photo of Prince. There may certainly be other reasonable…

Since the ruling actually mentions Warhol using commercial advertisements in his artwork I'm somewhat convinced by their argument. From the ruling: In answering this question, we have used the word “transformative” to describe a copying use that adds something new and important. Campbell, 510 U. S., at 579. An Cite as: 593 U. S. ____ (2021) 25 Opinion of the Court “‘artistic painting’” might, for example, fall withi…

IANAL but isn't there a massive difference between an artist making a comment on a totally unrelated field (art world commenting on the business world), and copying a product to use for the same purpose (i.e. a business copying another business's API).

Re: Does Andy Warhol get same copyright treatment as Google code?

#34

Post by Jaygles »

ipaddr wrote: post #31
Jaygles wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did mistakenly state Prince instead of Goldsmith. But silly enough that sort of plays into my hypothetical. Prince would own his likeness, which he would use to claim partial ownership of Goldsmith's photo. And Goldsmith and Prince would have a claim on Warhol's usage of the photo/likeness. I don't think the situation you describe applies however. Someone wouldn't be able to siphon away ownership by using someone e…

Prince's twin brother or someone who looks like prince either naturally or through surgery could make a likeness claim. There might be a few holes in this plan.

Sure, it's not perfect, I'm just going through a thought exercise to try and reason if the hypothetical I'm suggesting might be more fair than the current system. A lot of people say there are holes/deficiencies in the current copyright system. And a "perfect" system that everyone would be happy with is likely impossible.

Re: Does Andy Warhol get same copyright treatment as Google code?

#35

Post by claudiawerner »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #28

From the recent supreme court decision on oracle/google: > "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 d…

Stupid hypothetical: If I created and distributed a 15 hour long song, in which I included a 3.6 minute (corresponding to 0.04% of the whole track) long song by The Beatles, would I be acting illegally? Is my case helped if the Beatles song fits in very well with the rest of the piece such that my work has more artistic value, to the point where no reasonable person would say it's intended as infringement?

Re: Does Andy Warhol get same copyright treatment as Google code?

#36

Post by shakna »

claudiawerner wrote: post #35
jrochkind1 wrote: post #28

From the recent supreme court decision on oracle/google: > "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 d…

Stupid hypothetical: If I created and distributed a 15 hour long song, in which I included a 3.6 minute (corresponding to 0.04% of the whole track) long song by The Beatles, would I be acting illegally? Is my case helped if the Beatles song fits in very well with the rest of the piece such that my work has more artistic value, to the point where no reasonable person would say it's intended as infringement?

> 15 hour long song, in which I included a 3.6 minute (corresponding to 0.04% of the whole track) long song by The Beatles

This is posing it the wrong way around. The API is still a tiny subset of Java itself.

If that 3.6 minutes is composed of any substantiate part of the Beatles' song, then you'll clearly have a problem.

However, we actually do have case law in this particular case that we can refer to, specifically, around sampling. In which case, we have several instances where samples less than 3 seconds can be considered substantive, as they may reflect the tone and rhythms unique to the original artist.

Re: Does Andy Warhol get same copyright treatment as Google code?

#37

Post by exporectomy »

Jaygles wrote: post #24
exporectomy wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 did mistakenly state Prince instead of Goldsmith. But silly enough that sort of plays into my hypothetical. Prince would own his likeness, which he would use to claim partial ownership of Goldsmith's photo. And Goldsmith and Prince would have a claim on Warhol's usage of the photo/likeness. I don't think the situation you describe applies however. Someone wouldn't be able to siphon away ownership by using someone e…

Isn't that kind of how it already works? A software vendor licenses libraries bundled with their software and different people end up owning different parts of the final product?

Re: Does Andy Warhol get same copyright treatment as Google code?

#38

Post by exporectomy »

Causality1 wrote: post #18

The idea that someone who's been dead for thirty-four years and whose closest living relative is a grand-niece should have any legal standing in any regard is astoundingly perverse.

It's perverse that property ownership changes hands when owners die? What you you propose instead? Allow nieces but not grand-nieces to own inherited copyrights? Copyright expires 33 years after death?

Re: Does Andy Warhol get same copyright treatment as Google code?

#39

Post by saalweachter »

shakna wrote: post #36
claudiawerner wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stupid hypothetical: If I created and distributed a 15 hour long song, in which I included a 3.6 minute (corresponding to 0.04% of the whole track) long song by The Beatles, would I be acting illegally? Is my case helped if the Beatles song fits in very well with the rest of the piece such that my work has more artistic value, to the point where no reasonable person would say it's intended as infringement?

> 15 hour long song, in which I included a 3.6 minute (corresponding to 0.04% of the whole track) long song by The Beatles This is posing it the wrong way around. The API is still a tiny subset of Java itself. If that 3.6 minutes is composed of any substantiate part of the Beatles' song, then you'll clearly have a problem. However, we actually do have case law in this particular case that we can refer to, specificall…

Huh, is Java the API or the implementation?

The API is just a tiny amount of code, but it is an extremely valuable and difficult to create portion of the code base. A good implementation is important, but a good implementation can't make up for a bad API.

Re: Does Andy Warhol get same copyright treatment as Google code?

#40

Post by Jaygles »

exporectomy wrote: post #37
Jaygles wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did mistakenly state Prince instead of Goldsmith. But silly enough that sort of plays into my hypothetical. Prince would own his likeness, which he would use to claim partial ownership of Goldsmith's photo. And Goldsmith and Prince would have a claim on Warhol's usage of the photo/likeness. I don't think the situation you describe applies however. Someone wouldn't be able to siphon away ownership by using someone e…

Isn't that kind of how it already works? A software vendor licenses libraries bundled with their software and different people end up owning different parts of the final product?

In that case it's pretty clear who owns what due to the licensing involved.

I was more thinking of situations where a person, say, photographs a building they don't own or didn't design. They couldn't have taken that photo if no one built the building. But they alone own the copyright to the photo. Technically anyone who helped construct the building contributed to the creation of the photo, but have no right to prevent the photo from being circulated, sold, etc..

Let me be clear on saying that that's how I think it should be. I don't think we should stymie productivity for creating art/music, even when you are using other's creations as pieces of your own creation. But it gets murky like the case described in the article where Warhol created his own work depicting Goldsmith's work, and the courts ruled it wasn't a fair use.

Post reply on HN