Weren't NFTs supposed to solve this?
Winner, you don’t deserve the downvotes.
Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique
51–60 of 162 posts
Re: Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique
#52Earlier 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…
https://imgur.com/8OoQFr8 the image is composite of 50% the photo, 50% the painting. (with re-alignment, the flowers are also a perfect match, same for the clothes, etc.)
Just because you are using your hand, doesn't mean that you magically are no longer copying
Re: Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique
#53This 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 migh…
The difference is that Fairey used a copy of the original Obama photograph in his work. Thus he violated the copyright of the photographer, Mannie Garcia.
In Zhang's case, there is no evidence that a copy of the original photograph by Zhang was included in the derivative work.
Therefore no infringement. At least under U.S. law.
Re: Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique
#54Earlier 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…
https://imgur.com/8OoQFr8 the image is composite of 50% the photo, 50% the painting. (with re-alignment, the flowers are also a perfect match, same for the clothes, etc.) Just because you are using your hand, doesn't mean that you magically are no longer copying
> Just because you are using your hand, doesn't mean that you magically are no longer copying
All art is copying. A painter selected a set of colors, choosing some over others, and then used their own skill and a brush to put those colors to canvas in order to create something based on how they saw an object in the world around them. Their subject was filtered by the eyes and perspective of the artist. The artist chose what to keep identical, what to emphasize, what to remove, or when to add something that the subject they were painting never had. The result is something unique that represents the artist's viewpoint.
The photo was clearly the artist's subject, and so it is very similar, but what resulted was not a reproduction of the original. Personally, I like the original photo much better, but I might like another artist's take on it even more than the original photo. That's why we should be careful when granting copyright protections. When artists can freely create new works by reinterpreting the subjects, ideas, and output of other artists we get a more rich and thriving culture filled with different artistic works to choose from according to our own preferences. It's important to police reproductions so that artists can continue to be rewarded for their works, but over-apply copyright and you not only censor artists, you can prevent yourself from having or experiencing something that would have deeply touched you, or even changed you.
Re: Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://imgur.com/8OoQFr8 the image is composite of 50% the photo, 50% the painting. (with re-alignment, the flowers are also a perfect match, same for the clothes, etc.) Just because you are using your hand, doesn't mean that you magically are no longer copying
> Just because you are using your hand, doesn't mean that you magically are no longer copying All art is copying. A painter selected a set of colors, choosing some over others, and then used their own skill and a brush to put those colors to canvas in order to create something based on how they saw an object in the world around them. Their subject was filtered by the eyes and perspective of the artist. The artist cho…
> The artist chooses what to keep identical [All of it], what to emphasize [None of it], what to remove [None of it], or what to add [Nothing]
Re: Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Just because you are using your hand, doesn't mean that you magically are no longer copying All art is copying. A painter selected a set of colors, choosing some over others, and then used their own skill and a brush to put those colors to canvas in order to create something based on how they saw an object in the world around them. Their subject was filtered by the eyes and perspective of the artist. The artist cho…
> The artist chooses what to keep identical [All of it], what to emphasize [None of it], what to remove [None of it], or what to add [Nothing]
There are clear differences between the painting and the photo, multiple things were added and removed. You might not place much value in them, but that's purely subjective. I must place more importance on those changes than you do because I have a preference for the photo over the painting. Objectively, those changes do exist regardless of how we feel about them.
Re: Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique
#57This 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 migh…
The difference is that Fairey used a copy of the original Obama photograph in his work. Thus he violated the copyright of the photographer, Mannie Garcia. In Zhang's case, there is no evidence that a copy of the original photograph by Zhang was included in the derivative work. Therefore no infringement. At least under U.S. law. EDIT_ See https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf
I guess one way to look at it is, if the original work (the photograph) was in the public domain and the derivative work was created (the painting), would the artist who created the painting still be allowed to claim copyright over it.
But I still don't understand about Fairey. How did he use the original? Even if he traced outlines to create his image from a photograph, it's still "creating a drawing based on a photograph".
Re: Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique
#58Imagine a problem that someone wouldn’t have if copyright protection had never existed to begin with? Here’s a great example of one.
Copyright does address a very real issue. How would you solve it?
Re: Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The artist chooses what to keep identical [All of it], what to emphasize [None of it], what to remove [None of it], or what to add [Nothing]
There are clear differences between the painting and the photo, multiple things were added and removed. You might not place much value in them, but that's purely subjective. I must place more importance on those changes than you do because I have a preference for the photo over the painting. Objectively, those changes do exist regardless of how we feel about them.
It's clear that one is a mirror image of the other with minor Photoshop edits. I think it's clear to just about everybody. I don't believe you are arguing in good faith.
Re: Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> This is a 1:1 replica of the original, "printed" by hand, presented as own, and sold. The ruling here does not contest that what was sold is a close replica of the original. What was ruled here is that the original author was not able to convince the tribunal that there was enough originality in the creation of the photograph to have it protected against copies in the first place. My interpretation from the article…
It's an idiotic expectation because you can't prove that somebody out there hasn't done what you have. It should be assumed until proven otherwise.
I'm not a lawyer, but my personal rule(s) of thumb are: - Could you create this work by accident? (clearly no) - Could it be mistaken for another work? (hers not that I know of, his clearly)
She is right that these expectations effectively mean most portraits are not original and anyone can copy them.