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

21–30 of 162 posts

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

#21

Post by shadowgovt »

kzrdude wrote: post #12
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.

Which is, indeed, legal in many jurisdictions (including the US).

Cross-reference Andy Warhol's famous silk screens. For example, the reproduction of Elizabeth Taylor (https://www.sothebys.com/en/articles/andy-warhol-and-his-pro...) was sourced from a 1950s publicity photo.

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

#22

Post by pdntspa »

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/…

I agree. I am part of the local art community and there is this meme idea floating around that the artist owns everything about a work they make, even the idea. At present people are using this to bash on AI art and decry it as stolen. But this is mistaken, both from a legal sense (many aspects of a work are not copyrightable), and in a physics sense (you cannot control an idea in the minds of others, information wants to be free, and so on).

I don't want to deny that AI artwork is potentially a threat, much in the way that a printing press was to scribes of the time or a camera to painters. And I understand the need to put food on the table. But the only form of protection available is limited at best, by design, and I think many of these people fail to see how they might be infringing on others' copyright under such a harsh and draconian interpretation of it.

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

#23

Post by fzzzy »

kzrdude wrote: post #12
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.

That's not what copyright is. Copyright is on a particular work. It had nothing to do with protecting stylistic elements.

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

#24

Post by pdntspa »

glandium wrote: post #20
autoexec wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.toureif…

This sort of copyright absurdity warrants flouting the rules as often as is realistically possible. It may be an overreach backed by law, but that makes it no less of an overreach.

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

#25

Post by fallinghawks »

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.

I agree, it is far beyond "inspiration". Next to zero changes: same type of flowers, identical thinness of straps, hair up in a loose bun with strands spraying in very similar locations, folds in the fabric carbon-copy identical. Even the eyebrow, with its slight heaviness on the straight part, is the same. Dude made her eye a bit more slanted, wow. This is saying anyone can flip, photocopy, and color someone else's work, making the most nominal changes, and it's suddenly an "original."

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

#26

Post by detaro »

shadowgovt wrote: post #21
kzrdude wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which is, indeed, legal in many jurisdictions (including the US). Cross-reference Andy Warhol's famous silk screens. For example, the reproduction of Elizabeth Taylor ( https://www.sothebys.com/en/articles/andy-warhol-and-his-pro... ) was sourced from a 1950s publicity photo.

This is kind of funny, given that "Estate of Andy Warhol vs a photographer of a picture he used" is in front of the supreme court right now, suggesting it might not be that clear-cut?

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

#27

Post by autoexec »

glandium wrote: post #20
autoexec wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.toureif…

True, I do feel that some cases take copyright protection way too far and we're all worse off for it. Here's another example of that from the US: https://rpjlaw.com/blurred-lines-copying-songs-musical-style...

Overbroad copyright protections are often granted, but it's never a good thing for anyone except the shortsighted artists who stand to directly benefit from censoring their peers and preventing the rest of us from having a richer culture.

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

#28

Post by zaroth »

shadowgovt wrote: post #21
kzrdude wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which is, indeed, legal in many jurisdictions (including the US). Cross-reference Andy Warhol's famous silk screens. For example, the reproduction of Elizabeth Taylor ( https://www.sothebys.com/en/articles/andy-warhol-and-his-pro... ) was sourced from a 1950s publicity photo.

Warhol’s work - his painting of a photo of Prince - is going before the Surpreme Court to answer just this question, is it not?!

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

#29

Post by rippercushions »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #17

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…

Nope. Zhang took a photograph of a model, and the guy in Luxembourg basically copied the photo in a painting, no new model involved. This article has a side by side comparison:

https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2022/12/08/singaporean-phot...

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

#30

Post by kzrdude »

fzzzy wrote: post #23
kzrdude wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's not what copyright is. Copyright is on a particular work. It had nothing to do with protecting stylistic elements.

What is "the work"? If you make the definition of the work too physical, it becomes impossible to violate copyright (can't clone matter).
Post reply on HN