Does Andy Warhol get same copyright treatment as Google code?
hollywoodreporter.com
Does Andy Warhol get same copyright treatment as Google code?
1–10 of 60 posts
Re: Does Andy Warhol get same copyright treatment as Google code?
#2Would it make sense to have multiple entities being able to have copyright on a single piece of work? In the Warhol case, maybe x% of the copyright to Warhol and y% to Prince?
It would make the legal aspect of profiting off such works 10x more complicated. And determining the appropriate percentages for each "contributor" would be a nightmare, if not impossible. But would it be more fair in the end?
Re: Does Andy Warhol get same copyright treatment as Google code?
#3Would it make sense to have multiple entities being able to have copyright on a single piece of work? In the Warhol case, maybe x% of the copyright to Warhol and y% to Prince? It would make the legal aspect of profiting off such works 10x more complicated. And determining the appropriate percentages for each "contributor" would be a nightmare, if not impossible. But would it be more fair in the end?
It doesn't entirely make sense because monetary compensation is only one of the rights granted by copyright.
Even music, which has compulsory licensing, grants the copyright owner the right to refuse to have their work used in certain contexts.
You could run the work like a corporation with a majority being required for the decision I suppose. But this gets sticky really quickly.
Re: Does Andy Warhol get same copyright treatment as Google code?
#4this argument doesn't make any sense.
a photo doesn't have an API.
Re: Does Andy Warhol get same copyright treatment as Google code?
#5Stupid clickbait to cite Google (and to do so incorrectly).
I think the warhol foundation is in the right here, but the API decision has no relevance.
Re: Does Andy Warhol get same copyright treatment as Google code?
#6Quoting Google v. Oracle is really grasping at straws in my opinion. The SCOTUS opinion in Google v. Oracle was actually quite insightful and clear in that the need for the "line-for-line" copying of just the API declarations was the bare minimum needed for interoperability in the world of software.
None of those concerns exist in this case of Warhol copying a photo of Prince. There may certainly be other reasonable reasons for or against Warhol's use of the photo on fair use grounds, but the Google v. Oracle case is not one of them.
Re: Does Andy Warhol get same copyright treatment as Google code?
#7Stupid clickbait to cite Google (and to do so incorrectly). I think the warhol foundation is in the right here, but the API decision has no relevance.
I don't think it's really "stupid clickbait". The entire reason the Warhol Foundation went back to the appellate court was so they could cite Google v. Oracle as a new decision thus requiring review.
Re: Does Andy Warhol get same copyright treatment as Google code?
#8this argument doesn't make any sense. a photo doesn't have an API.
It doesn't? Maybe the API of a photograph or other piece of work is how you perceive or appreciate it... the aesthetic of it. In this sense what Warhol has done is transformative.
Re: Does Andy Warhol get same copyright treatment as Google code?
#9this argument doesn't make any sense. a photo doesn't have an API.
It doesn't? Maybe the API of a photograph or other piece of work is how you perceive or appreciate it... the aesthetic of it. In this sense what Warhol has done is transformative.
API stands for application programming interface. Or didn't you know?
Re: Does Andy Warhol get same copyright treatment as Google code?
#10Stupid clickbait to cite Google (and to do so incorrectly). I think the warhol foundation is in the right here, but the API decision has no relevance.
I don't think it's really "stupid clickbait". The entire reason the Warhol Foundation went back to the appellate court was so they could cite Google v. Oracle as a new decision thus requiring review.
The title is not clickbait, the reason the Warhol Foundation is using is what I think the parent is arguing is "clickbait".