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

Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 162 posts

Re: Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique

#11

Post by glandium »

autoexec wrote: post #8

I don't really understand, I'd think that complete reproduction of her photo should be prohibited under copyright. No one should be able to take copies of her photo and paste it onto whatever product they want to sell for example. If her exact photo has been denied copyright protections I'd agree that's a problem. That said, the pose is not unique and her example of someone who "copied" her work ( https://nitter.net/…

How is it only "inspired" when it's not only the same pose, but the same person and the same clothes, up to its individual folds. "Inspired" would be inviting a model to wear the same thing and take the pose, and painting that. Here, it's a reproduction of the mirrored picture, with different colors and trivial changes (like the earings). Calling this inspiration is utterly ridiculous.

Re: Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique

#12

Post by kzrdude »

blondin wrote: post #3

not an artist but, reading between the lines, her real fight is against people who are copying. and profiting from her work. that said, i agree with the ruling. there are chances that other artists who haven't seen her art before would come up with that scene. or that specific pose. not the other artistic choices, but the pose and the flowers, and even the kimono, yes.

The face of the person in the painting is recognizable across the copying, I don't see how it can not be a copyright issue. Clearly cribbed her work completely and changed some color and details.

Re: Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique

#13

Post by SanjayMehta »

Waterluvian wrote: post #10
SanjayMehta wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Art feels weird to me. https://www.elitereaders.com/ridiculous-paintings-insanely-s...

I don’t understand a lot of these pieces. But I’ve also experienced tremendous emotion over something that I try to share with others who give the same kind of “uhh what?” response. So I accept that I’m probably not the audience. That being said I think there’s probably a few things that happen sometimes: 1. Money laundering 2. Rich people buying status 3. Rich people figuring out what exactly to do with their money…

All art is highly subjective - "I know it when I see it."

I think what I want to say is that the world around art is weird to me.

As for money laundering, Jackson Pollock comes to mind.

https://medium.com/@MichaelMcBride/how-jackson-pollock-and-t...

And politicians receiving vast sums of money for their "art." Makes one go "hmmm."

https://www.indiatimes.com/culture/who-we-are/wtf-mamata-ban...

Re: Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique

#14

Post by vr46 »

There was a clear precedent set many years ago when an artist did this exact thing and lost in court. The photograph was of a Native American in profile with specific headgear that was copied into a computer illustration. We are talking 1990s here. No idea how to find it.

Re: Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique

#15

Post by autoexec »

glandium wrote: post #11
autoexec wrote: post #8

I don't really understand, I'd think that complete reproduction of her photo should be prohibited under copyright. No one should be able to take copies of her photo and paste it onto whatever product they want to sell for example. If her exact photo has been denied copyright protections I'd agree that's a problem. That said, the pose is not unique and her example of someone who "copied" her work ( https://nitter.net/…

How is it only "inspired" when it's not only the same pose, but the same person and the same clothes, up to its individual folds. "Inspired" would be inviting a model to wear the same thing and take the pose, and painting that. Here, it's a reproduction of the mirrored picture, with different colors and trivial changes (like the earings). Calling this inspiration is utterly ridiculous.

> but the same person and the same clothes, up to its individual folds.

It's not the same person. The face is very different, as is the hair. not the same folds either, look at the white cloth near the flower. It's also a painting and not a photograph. If a painter creates a painting of Grand Central Station has he violated the copyright of the architect? Artists must be able to create, by their own hand, their own versions of things depicted in other works of art or even of other artistic works themselves. (see for example https://publicdelivery.org/fernando-botero-mona-lisa/)

Re: Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique

#16

Post by debesyla »

glandium wrote: post #11
autoexec wrote: post #8

I don't really understand, I'd think that complete reproduction of her photo should be prohibited under copyright. No one should be able to take copies of her photo and paste it onto whatever product they want to sell for example. If her exact photo has been denied copyright protections I'd agree that's a problem. That said, the pose is not unique and her example of someone who "copied" her work ( https://nitter.net/…

How is it only "inspired" when it's not only the same pose, but the same person and the same clothes, up to its individual folds. "Inspired" would be inviting a model to wear the same thing and take the pose, and painting that. Here, it's a reproduction of the mirrored picture, with different colors and trivial changes (like the earings). Calling this inspiration is utterly ridiculous.

It's not a carbon copy and the changes aren't minimal - thus it's inspired, not copied.

After all, copyright works for whole thing, not spare parts (technique, style or "idea" aren't copyrightable)...

Re: Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique

#17

Post by pbhjpbhj »

The tweets appear to obfuscate the actual issue.

From the thread _I guess_ that she took a standard pose of a model, then someone else came along and posed the same model in the same way?

If that's right, then the Luxembourg courts would be upholding a quite long standing position.

The following is entirely my personal opinion and in no way relates to my employment.

Consider if ordinary poses were considered creative enough to be copyright works: the first person who took a square-on head and shoulders would own the rights to that pose and no domestic-style face-on photos could be taken without a license (or, what are we at now, until 70y after their death).

Consider if you couldn't hire a model someone else had hired [to shoot standard poses], the first shoot they did might have to be their last. You'd have to pay them enough to cover their entire career; if the photographer kept the copyright (outside USA-style Fair Use) that person could never take photos of themselves again.

Re: Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique

#18

Post by shadowgovt »

This is somewhat demonstrative of how thin-on-the-ground copyright protection is relative to where creators want it to be (especially when considering what AI-generated art does to the industry).

Many artists seem to think the protection is thicker, but here we see an example of doing a painting based on a photograph being sufficiently transformative.

Re: Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique

#19

Post by SanjayMehta »

vr46 wrote: post #14

There was a clear precedent set many years ago when an artist did this exact thing and lost in court. The photograph was of a Native American in profile with specific headgear that was copied into a computer illustration. We are talking 1990s here. No idea how to find it.

I went searching for this case and found this fascinating article on advertising.

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/509019

Re: Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique

#20

Post by glandium »

autoexec wrote: post #15
glandium wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it only "inspired" when it's not only the same pose, but the same person and the same clothes, up to its individual folds. "Inspired" would be inviting a model to wear the same thing and take the pose, and painting that. Here, it's a reproduction of the mirrored picture, with different colors and trivial changes (like the earings). Calling this inspiration is utterly ridiculous.

> but the same person and the same clothes, up to its individual folds. It's not the same person. The face is very different, as is the hair. not the same folds either, look at the white cloth near the flower. It's also a painting and not a photograph. If a painter creates a painting of Grand Central Station has he violated the copyright of the architect? Artists must be able to create, by their own hand, their own v…

Counter example:

THE TOWER ILLUMINATED Controlled use

The various illuminations of the Eiffel Tower (golden illumination, twinkling, beacon and events lighting) are protected. The use of the image of the Eiffel Tower at night is therefore subject to prior authorisation by the SETE. This use is subject to payment of rights, the amount of which is determined by the intended use, the media plan, etc.

https://www.toureiffel.paris/en/business/use-image-of-eiffel...

Post reply on HN