91–100 of 162 posts
I think this reply from @mezoliad has the most plausible explanation why the court would rule in this way: > As a Luxembourger, I am sadly not surprised by this. Dieschburg's lawyer is a well known figure (and well respected by many) with a solid amount of anti-American and racist bigotry. > As an Asian-American woman, being up against a white Luxembourger, with the country's most prominent lawyer, on a Luxembourg co…
How does the copyright system in Luxembourg work? In Germany for example (this will ignore a lot of nuance!), there is no applying or denying of copyright. If you created something, you own the copyright. It is even in the German name: "Urheberrecht" literally translates to "right of the creator". It can not be sold. And then there is the second concept of "Verwertungsrecht" or "Nutzungsrecht", which defines who has…
> How does the copyright system in Luxembourg work? They're signatories to the Berne Convention[1] which gives you automatic copyright on "every production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain, whatever the mode or form of its expression" and also gives you control over rights for "the right to make adaptations and arrangements". Which I would understand to mean they can't say "copyright is void because of…
Then the "German" way of doing things is actually _the_ way of doing things, and the US just hase some additional stuff on top.
That also clarifies the twitter thread to me: This was about a _court_ ruling, not some copyright office deciding if something is copyrighted or not (which I assumed because I thought about the German way being special, and my misguided understanding of the US system being the international standard).
I also realize now that further down the twitter thread this is made more explicit. I should really have read more then the first 5 tweets. Sorry.
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 flowers are arranged identically. The folds of fabric and hair are identical aside from a few trivial changes. It looks like a lightly photoshopped version of the original. Far too similar for chance.
I think this reply from @mezoliad has the most plausible explanation why the court would rule in this way: > As a Luxembourger, I am sadly not surprised by this. Dieschburg's lawyer is a well known figure (and well respected by many) with a solid amount of anti-American and racist bigotry. > As an Asian-American woman, being up against a white Luxembourger, with the country's most prominent lawyer, on a Luxembourg co…
If you're going to claim racism and "anti-american bigotry" "plausible", you need a bit more than just a rando on Twitter making such claim. Who's the person tweeting what you quoted? You don't know. What's the exact ruling? You don't know.
Accusing a court of racism against 'asians' and 'anti-Americanism' is a serious accusation.
Not only that, but you are finding 'plausible' a collusion between the lawyer and the judge who made the verdict? it is simply preposterous, not "plausible".
This is an article that goes deeper into the court decision, without resorting to identity politics (in French).
https://www.tageblatt.lu/headlines/affaire-dieschburg-zhang-...
Basically it says that in that specific country, photographs that do not demonstrate some degree of originality aren't protected by a copyright law from 2001 (when it comes to plagiarism which is obvious in that case).
I think this reply from @mezoliad has the most plausible explanation why the court would rule in this way: > As a Luxembourger, I am sadly not surprised by this. Dieschburg's lawyer is a well known figure (and well respected by many) with a solid amount of anti-American and racist bigotry. > As an Asian-American woman, being up against a white Luxembourger, with the country's most prominent lawyer, on a Luxembourg co…
I don't believe that the Luxemburg court is just Rassist. Luxemburg is not some random backwards country
I think this reply from @mezoliad has the most plausible explanation why the court would rule in this way: > As a Luxembourger, I am sadly not surprised by this. Dieschburg's lawyer is a well known figure (and well respected by many) with a solid amount of anti-American and racist bigotry. > As an Asian-American woman, being up against a white Luxembourger, with the country's most prominent lawyer, on a Luxembourg co…
Why? You fail to mention your assumptions about Luxembourg judges that underlie the "plausibility" and "unsurprisingness" of this outcome. Can you maybe share your argument with the curious reader?
Yet a painted replica of the photograph was apparently original enough to win a prize and be put up for sale at a gallery.
This decision is completely absurd, so there must be some reason why the court decided the way it did.
The explanation that a Luxembourg judge at a Luxembourg court decides in favor of a Luxembourg man who just won a Luxembourg price and is represented by a popular Luxembourg lawyer just sounds very plausible.
Judges are humans too, and they are not infallible, so it seems plausible that this has something to do with the decision.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
....but this reasoning/ruling now apply to all other portraits?
This is NOT the US (or any common-law jurisdiction) where it sets a precedent. Civil-law jurisdictions don't have a concept of precedents, they always look at a case based only upon law.
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…
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbusinesscouncil/2022/09/2...
Sounds unlikely that would merit copyright protection.
Edit: but that being said, the painted portrait is pretty much an exact (mirrored) copy. That definitely does not seem correct to me.