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

131–140 of 162 posts

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

#131

Post by BulgarianIdiot »

VanTheBrand wrote: post #61

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 exact…

Knocking off a book by changing some character names is common. So in spirit, yes you can't make a movie based on a book without licensing. In practice we have stealth book adaptations without license. We even have movies licensing a book, and then ignoring everything EXCEPT the names of few characters.

With AI you need to prove that picture A.jpg was based on work B.jpg. How are you going to do that? "It looks similar" is not a proof I used your picture.

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

#133

Post by twic »

glandium wrote: post #20
autoexec wrote: post #15

Earlier 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…

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 is a "freedom of panorama" thing, one of the few aspects of copyright which varies extensively across the world:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama

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

#135

Post by amelius »

fxtentacle wrote: post #105

Eww 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…

By the way, how much money does a copyright-judge make on a case like this, typically?

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

#137

Post by UncleMeat »

SanjayMehta wrote: post #7
Waterluvian wrote: post #2

That is an unoriginal pose. Which is why it seems ridiculous that a copyright would be based on pose. There’s still a lot of originality present. I guess the issue is that the authorities need to feign some sort of objectivity and while a human can say “these are obvious imitations/reproductions” they might struggle to define a set of rules you could use to test every case. Copyright continues to feel weird to me.

Art feels weird to me. https://www.elitereaders.com/ridiculous-paintings-insanely-s...

"Particular art pieces sell for ridiculous prices because of the strange world of art investment" is a reasonable opinion to hold. But the article is just "wow, Rothko sure is shit."

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

#138

Post by blagie »

I will point a few issues with this whole discussion:

1) We have a Twitter thread, from one party, emotionally connected and clearly not unbiased

2) What the threat claims makes no sense. It might be correct -- court often rules in ways which make no sense -- or it might be misrepresenting things significantly.

3) Authors' rights are a cultural construct, and the extent and places protection extends depends on culture. The US has done a lot to push its own model of copyright on the world (and to educate kids that it's the only model of authors' rights and a human right). I would like to see more diversity and innovation globally here.

I don't fundamentally see the court's decision as either correct or flawed without a lot more context and primary sources. My instinct is the same as everyone else's -- this feels like infringement -- but I'm situated in the same cultural context.

My instinct with just a few more changes would be different.

If the folds of the dress, arrangement of flowers, and strands of hair were not placed the same, I'd consider the new work a sufficiently new work to not be infringing. Fundamentally, I'm a fan of building off of other's work and various forms of "resampling," so long as the result is sufficiently derivative, unconfusing (e.g. can't be passed off or confused for the original artist), and doesn't compete directly with the original work. I support a very broad interpretation of fair use. I've also been in countries where copyright is ignored, and where it's draconian, and I can tolerate other perspectives.

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

#139

Post by richbell »

daxfohl wrote: post #36

Weren't NFTs supposed to solve this?

How would NFTs have solved someone copying your work?

For the sake of argument, let's say that Zhang also created an NFT of her photo. What's to stop Dieschburg from right-clicking it and publishing his own "NFT" of that work?

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

#140

Post by layer8 »

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/…

It’s not just “influenced by the original”. They clearly just mirror-flipped the original image and photoshopped it a bit.
Post reply on HN