How about Shepard Fairey?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepard_Fairey#Legal_issues_wi...
Does Andy Warhol get same copyright treatment as Google code?
41–50 of 60 posts
Re: Does Andy Warhol get same copyright treatment as Google code?
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
Yes, one of the fair use factors is whether the infringing use is a market substitute. No one is buying a Warhol painting of Campbell soup instead of real Campbell soup.
Re: Does Andy Warhol get same copyright treatment as Google code?
#43Quoting 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…
"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."
I would argue that the use of the Goldsmith art to create the silk screens was needed for the "interoperability" of the statement warhol was trying to make.
The fact that it IS specific, recognizable art is what makes the actual mental connection, a sort of "API of the psyche", if you will, and hopefully conveys the desired information to the endpoint, or viewer.
Re: Does Andy Warhol get same copyright treatment as Google code?
#44What 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"…
Maybe music is a better analogy. If a band does a cover of a song, they may hold copyright to the recording (implementation) but not the composition (specification).
Re: Does Andy Warhol get same copyright treatment as Google code?
#45The 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?
> It's perverse that property ownership changes hands when owners die
Yes. 100% inheritance tax.
Re: Does Andy Warhol get same copyright treatment as Google code?
#46Would 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?
Music industry seems to work like that, set in stone % shared royalties based on your role/ownership
Re: Does Andy Warhol get same copyright treatment as Google code?
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
Yes, one of the fair use factors is whether the infringing use is a market substitute. No one is buying a Warhol painting of Campbell soup instead of real Campbell soup.
This cost too much, and the taste is off.
Re: Does Andy Warhol get same copyright treatment as Google code?
#48After reading up a little on this, it seems to me to be one of those cases where every judge and every internet commenter will have their own opinion. Any attempt at an objective ruling is impossible.
I will say though that the comparisons with Google vs Oracle are meaningless. It is clear that the Warhol Estate's legal team doesn't understand the underlying concepts and/or are trying a very creative interpretation of the ruling to suit their needs.
Re: Does Andy Warhol get same copyright treatment as Google code?
#49Why isn't it allowed to say that images of Prince were part of the environment, and the Warhol work simply documents or depicts that which was in the environment for all to see and which all experienced? It is both documentary and impression.
To me, (in a fantasy, perhaps incompletely considered "sane" world) once you broadcast or publicize something, you really waive all right to continue controlling it. If you want it for yourself, then keep it to yourself. But if you voluntarily allow it to be broadcast on TV or radio, or published in books or magazines, then you chose to make it a part of everyone's environment, and at that point it's THEIR environment, which in a sane world, they are free to at least observe and discuss. And recording and re-transmitting, even without transformation would just be forms of observation and discussion.
If the original photographer didn't want their photograph disseminated, they were free to not publish it or sell it to someone who they knew would publish it. They could have kept it locked in a safe in their own house and for their own enjoyment, and no one else would ever see it, remember it, or depict their impression of that memory to others.
Tell me Warhol's work is not impressionism.
I also wonder what the photographer paid to Prince for the use of his likeness... Or maybe the real theft victim and moral owner of this intellectual property is the designer of the camera or the film or firmware? After all, the operator may have pressed a button, but the engineers did far more work and the image was actually literally created by the camera.
Re: Does Andy Warhol get same copyright treatment as Google code?
#50Why isn't it allowed to say that images of Prince were part of the environment, and the Warhol work simply documents or depicts that which was in the environment for all to see and which all experienced? It is both documentary and impression. To me, (in a fantasy, perhaps incompletely considered "sane" world) once you broadcast or publicize something, you really waive all right to continue controlling it. If you want…
Isn't that just a fancy way of saying "copyright shouldn't exist" ?