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

31–40 of 162 posts

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

#31

Post by buildbot »

pdntspa wrote: post #22
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 wan…

As both an artist and an AI person for my dayjob, this is spot on. People are losing their minds (esp. on twitter ) but really it’s exactly identical to the painting to photography transition.

I had an acquaintance tell me to either learn how to draw or commission work, when I expressed that Stable Diffusion was neat for people who might want to create visual art based on their text ideas - still requires human interaction, still art in my book. It was kind of a sad lack of reflection given that their own art reproduced trademarked media from certain spicy chili sauce brands.

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

#32

Post by Galanwe »

I don't quite understand the exact case that is being ruled here.

"Copyright" is a concept from countries of "common law" (essentially the US). Most of Europe are _not_ common law countries, and have their own "author's right" systems with very different philosophies and applications.

Copyrights are somewhat enforced in Europe as a matter of facilitating trades with the US by carrying over corresponding authorship protections.

It seems the author here is shocked that US copyright law is not enforced verbatim by the rest of the world... No thank you.

For most of Europe, author's right is a given, you don't need to apply for it and pay a fee.

To me, the US has a very bad track record of legislation around patents and copyrights which is poisoning them. I would very much like it to be contained to the US and not spread elsewhere.

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

#33

Post by shadowgovt »

detaro wrote: post #26
shadowgovt wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The question of whether something is transformative isn't always clear-cut, but when it is ruled transformative, it's independently copyrightable.

(IANAL, but personal opinion: appeals whiffed on this one and SCOTUS is going to give them a gentle wrist-slapping. Yes, there is a certain aspect of deciding the transformative nature of a work that requires the judge to step into the role of art critic. The nature of the test is to decide if a new work adds significant creative elements, and that's inherently subjective; the existence of the test doesn't let a judge dodge the art-critique responsibility).

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

#34

Post by powera »

Copyright maximalists are a menace to society.

An artist thinks that her unique genius means nobody else should be able to do "pose where model looks over left shoulder holding flowers". Humbug!

That school of thought has forgotten that the original intent of copyright was to encourage creation, not to allow a cabal of rent-seekers to prevent it.

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

#35

Post by shadowgovt »

zaroth wrote: post #28
shadowgovt wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?!

It's going before the court to answer the question of whether that work is transformative.

"Transformative" being an affirmative defense for copyright infringement is precedent (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 1994).

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

#37

Post by glandium »

pdntspa wrote: post #24
glandium wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Note, I don't have a strong opinion wrt copyright infringement in the case OP is about, but words are important. Let's not pretend it's "inspired".

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

#38

Post by piskerpan »

Galanwe wrote: post #32

I don't quite understand the exact case that is being ruled here. "Copyright" is a concept from countries of "common law" (essentially the US). Most of Europe are _not_ common law countries, and have their own "author's right" systems with very different philosophies and applications. Copyrights are somewhat enforced in Europe as a matter of facilitating trades with the US by carrying over corresponding authorship pr…

As an European, I don't see the problem with what's being argued here. The photo is art, as is, and it should be automatically covered by copyright. You can't download a photo and sell it.

This is a 1:1 replica of the original, "printed" by hand, presented as own, and sold.

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

#39

Post by UncleEntity »

Galanwe wrote: post #32

I don't quite understand the exact case that is being ruled here. "Copyright" is a concept from countries of "common law" (essentially the US). Most of Europe are _not_ common law countries, and have their own "author's right" systems with very different philosophies and applications. Copyrights are somewhat enforced in Europe as a matter of facilitating trades with the US by carrying over corresponding authorship pr…

> For most of Europe, author's right is a given, you don't need to apply for it and pay a fee.

That’s how it works in the US too.

You can register a copyright if you really want to but it isn’t necessary to obtain a copyright on your work. There’s also a bunch of exceptions to this in order to keep a copyright beyond the original term when they previously changed the laws which is how the happy birthday song folks finally lost the ability to sue everyone under the sun.

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

#40

Post by abetusk »

This seems to me to be a pretty clear case of copyright infringement. As others have pointed out, looking at the picture side by side it's nearly a copy, with details of the neck shadow, hair placement and clothing kept almost verbatim.

For some context, when Shepard Fairey used an AP picture of Obama as reference for the "HOPE" picture [0], consensus was that it was a difficult case to judge [1] and that Fairey might lose the case even though, in my opinion, it clearly fell under fair use.

This is, of course, US copyright law which is different from other places around the world, so I wonder if a lot of this ruling has to do with it being in Luxembourg.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster

[1] https://www.law.columbia.edu/news/archive/obama-hope-poster-...

Post reply on HN