It seems Jeff Dieschburg copied others too: https://twitter.com/bekka/status/1532097291330281472
Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique
101–110 of 162 posts
Re: Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique
#102This 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…
At the end of the thread there are translations from the ruling. The Luxembourg court didn't rule "this is different enough not to infringe", they ruled "the photo doesn't have enough originality to be covered by copyright" and so even an exact copy would be legal.
Re: Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique
#103I 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/…
> if her exact photo has been denied copyright protections I'd agree that's a problem
That is my reading of the translations of the ruling, at the end of the thread. It's not "original" enough, and so it's completely unprotected.
Re: Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique
#104Interesting to see how specific copyright can reach and how broad it can go in other cases.
Re: Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique
#105Eww looks like she's bending the facts a bit.
The first issue here is that she never registered her original work with any copyright registry. It's $55 for 750 photos for the US Copyright Office, which is more or less accepted worldwide. (Also, she's living in the US and working there.)
That leads to the second issue which is that it is now impossible to determine if the painting is a derived work off her photo, or if it is a derived work off one of the countless other images on the web that look pretty similar. (She can't argue that the artist should have know her photo because it wasn't registered)
Together, she's relying on implied copyright (because she didn't register) and arguing that she's famous, so it has to be her photo.
And to that, the judge replied that the photo is not unique enough to make that "it has to be my photo because I'm famous" argument work.
Do the images look similar, like it's the same person? Yes, but that's likeness rights, which the photographer can't sue for. The photographer can only sue for unique aspects in the composition and I'd agree that it is a pretty generic model shoot with pretty generic decoration and a pretty generic pose.
The women depicted in the photo could probably sue and win. But she didn't. This is only the photographer suing.
More info: https://www.tageblatt.lu/headlines/affaire-dieschburg-zhang-...
Re: Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique
#106I 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…
Not everything is racist.
Re: Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique
#107Eww looks like she's bending the facts a bit. The first issue here is that she never registered her original work with any copyright registry. It's $55 for 750 photos for the US Copyright Office, which is more or less accepted worldwide. (Also, she's living in the US and working there.) That leads to the second issue which is that it is now impossible to determine if the painting is a derived work off her photo, or i…
The first issue here is that she never registered her original work with any copyright registry. It's $55 for 750 photos for the US Copyright Office, which is more or less accepted worldwide. (Also, she's living in the US and working there.)
You don't have to register your art (including photos) to get copyright protection. Otherwise, poor people would get the screwed over even more - $55 is around a day's labour at minimum wage. Requiring registering just paves the way for companies to steal poor people's art and photos. Registering is completely optional, though it will sometimes help if you need to sue. There are other ways to prove stuff ownership, though.
Re: Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique
#108Ok so what does she want to copyright? Her face?
Re: Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique
#109Eww looks like she's bending the facts a bit. The first issue here is that she never registered her original work with any copyright registry. It's $55 for 750 photos for the US Copyright Office, which is more or less accepted worldwide. (Also, she's living in the US and working there.) That leads to the second issue which is that it is now impossible to determine if the painting is a derived work off her photo, or i…
The first issue here is that she never registered her original work with any copyright registry. It's $55 for 750 photos for the US Copyright Office, which is more or less accepted worldwide. (Also, she's living in the US and working there.) You don't have to register your art (including photos) to get copyright protection. Otherwise, poor people would get the screwed over even more - $55 is around a day's labour at…
Yes, poor people are being screwed over. You lose a whole set of available remedies in court if you don't register "timely". It's about as optional as health insurance. You're not forced to do it, but if anything goes wrong, you'll dearly regret your decision.
Also, she should have been suing to declare the painting a derived work of her photo. Drawing it was clearly transformative, so it's not a pure copyright infringement. But as a derived work, she would be entitled to receive revenue share from the painter. It's just that for that whole derived work thing to work, her photo needs to be registered first.
Re: Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique
#110Earlier 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.
If I take the Lord of the Rings book, type it all again by hand but change a few sentences here and there, would you consider that ok?