Lots of posters here seem to fundamentally misunderstand the basics of copyright protection and derivative works. So many replies about the example here not being an “exact copy” and therefore “obviously” not deserving of protection. I wonder if maybe all the talk over the last 20 years about copyright infringement as it relates to digital piracy and “exact copies” has perhaps confused people into thinking that exactness is a necessary part of copyright infringement. It’s not. Some very common examples you see every day. When you make a book into a movie? You need copyright holder permission. When you take sheet music or lyrics and make a song recording? You need permission of the copyright holder. These aren’t exact copies they aren’t even the same mediums.
Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique
61–70 of 162 posts
Re: Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique
#62I 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/…
Because what they did wasn't original. I've seen this pose, this "look", this everything thousands of times over before this person was even alive. To claim this whole thing is copy-writable is ludicrous.
Now, the image in and of itself is unique and the other people taking it and just flipping it and saying suddenly "it's mine" is just as ludicrous.
Re: Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique
#63Earlier 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…
That actually makes some sense of this situation. Not saying it's an okay ruling, mind you. But I can understand why the court arrived at this ruling.
Namely:
- Artist: hey, that violates my copyright!
- court: okay, what was copied then?
- artist: well isn't that obvious?!
- court: if it is, you should have no trouble pointing it out...
- artist: well, the pose, the composition, the lighting.
- court: ok. Hey defendant, are you coping copyrightable pose, composition, or lighting?
- defendant: naah dudes. Here, have a look at this bunch of works with the same pose, these lot with similar composition, and these with roughly the same lighting. Why there's even an old Dutch master in that last batch! Original, my ass.
- court: hey artist's lawyer, we're not here to rule on what we think, but on the legal merits of your claim. And your claim has been thoroughly debunked. Sorry, kthxbai!
Note that the crux is in the last part: legal aspects of the claim. If the court had ruled in favour of the artist, they would have to have been able to point out how this work violates copyright, but other similar works don't. And it seems the artist's lawyer didn't supply the court with enough detail to allow them to draw a legal border between what are copies of this work and what is original.
TL;DR: Courts don't rule on the merits of a case. They rule on the merits of each side's arguments.
Re: Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique
#64not 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.
Copyright is not a patent. If you paint a copy of Mona Lisa, it will be under your copyright, because of the provenance. There will be no doubt that it's your work, not Leonardo's.
That’s actually incorrect. In your example it’s fine only because the painting is old enough to be in the public domain. In general (with rare exceptions) you can’t paint an exact copy of a work under copyright and then utilize that copyright without permission of the original copyright holder. What you’ve created is a “derivative work.”
Re: Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique
#65This 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 think you are misunderstanding what a derivative work is and what is required for something to be considered one. Read the examples in the link you posted. Many of these don’t incorporate a literal direct copy of the underlying work.
Re: Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique
#66Earlier 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…
In general, art is probably a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good
Re: Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique
#67> This ruling effectively allows anyone in Luxembourg to freely exploit...
So roughly the population of Detroit, or Glasgow City?
Re: Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique
#68Lots of posters here seem to fundamentally misunderstand the basics of copyright protection and derivative works. So many replies about the example here not being an “exact copy” and therefore “obviously” not deserving of protection. I wonder if maybe all the talk over the last 20 years about copyright infringement as it relates to digital piracy and “exact copies” has perhaps confused people into thinking that exact…
And clearly the Luxembourg copyright system doesn't work that way? Maybe in Luxembourg, copyright only exists in much more limited situations?
Whether something should or should not be copyrightable in the moral sense is a very different conversation than in the legal sense and I don't really see why we should be restricted into believing that things that commonly require licenses should always be that way.
Re: Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique
#69Earlier 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.
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…
[deleted]
Re: Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique
#70I 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/…
> It's clearly directly influenced by the original, but if someone else wants to create something similar that's just art. It's what all artists do and always have done.
Copyrights can on some occasions preclude someone from independently creating a very similar work. In the UK, a photographer was found to have infringed the copyrights of another photographer, by creating very similar works. [0][1]
I don't know if this has ever happened in US law.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Island_Collections_Ltd_...
[1] https://www.copyrightuser.org/educate/the-game-is-on/episode...