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

111–120 of 162 posts

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

#111

Post by cutemonster »

Delemono wrote: post #86
newaccount74 wrote: post #81

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

Nationalism is also a thing, and tribalism, just saying

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

#112

Post by unglaublich »

newaccount74 wrote: post #97
unglaublich wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The court argued that the original photograph was not original enough to warrant copyright protection. 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 Luxembo…

Yes, there must be a reason. It's described extensively in the proceedings of the case.

What seems most plausible to me, is that we, aliens to Luxembourgh copyright law, outsiders to the court case, unaware of the actual text of the ruling, jump to unfounded conclusions based on our gut feeling and superstitions.

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

#113

Post by alpos »

Flipping the question around exposes the court's bias towards their own.

In this case the court claims this is an ordinary photo, not an artistic work; okay, that means one should easily be able to find hundreds to thousands of similar photos taken and disseminated in non-professional contexts. Image searching the internet through several search providers brings back only references to this case and more of Zhang's work.

It should also mean that Jeff's pieces are not original art work, do not get copyright protection either, and are essentially art fraud. This ruling should open him up to getting sued by anyone who thought they were buying an original art piece, only to find after this ruling that they bought an average Joe's random photo, this should include the gov't supported exhibit, which should want to revoke Jeff's prize.

With this ruling there really are not two ways about this. Either Zhang's work is original and Jeff copied it without asking, or Jeff's work is not original either and therefore isn't worthy of winning a prize or being sold as original art work.

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

#114

Post by cutemonster »

gsich wrote: post #106
newaccount74 wrote: post #81

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…

Not everything is racist.

Theres also tribalism and nationalism fwiw

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

#115

Post by [deleted] »

SargeDebian wrote: post #98
zinekeller wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think that’s not quite right. Precedents have a lesser role but are definitely relevant. My law classes in the Netherlands extensively covered important rulings as a way to interpret laws.

[deleted]

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

#116

Post by andirk »

abetusk wrote: post #57
jdkee wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 guess one way to look at it is, if the original work (the photograph) was in the public domain and the derivative work was created (the painting), would the artist who created the painting still be allowed to claim copyright over it. But I still don't understand about Fairey. How did he use the original? Even if he traced outlines to create his image from a photograph, it's still "creating a drawing based on a phot…

Your question encapsulates the issue: where do we draw the line? To see copyright laws whether the letter or the spirit of the law is left to pretty murky opinion maybe moreso than other case law. Traced a copyrighted photo, now it's new, but it's heavily derived from someone else's copyrighted IP, etc.

What about Andy Warhol's Marilyn Monroe screenprints https://www.masterworksfineart.com/artists/andy-warhol/scree... ? Original or copyright infringement?

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

#117

Post by alpos »

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…

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.

I did some image searches to find out if this photo was an ordinary reproduction of something commonly done but found only references to this case and a few references to Zhang's other work. Where/how did you find countless other pretty similar images?

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

#119

Post by [deleted] »

VanTheBrand wrote: post #65
jdkee wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#120

Post by alpos »

Ekaros wrote: post #93

Now even more fun question. Does the derivative work in this case have copyright? As original doesn't and it substantially copied it. So one probably would consider that new work can't be original and unique enough either.

Given that most of Jeff's pieces seem to be painted knock offs of other artist's photographic works, it seems to me that one could set up a cnc painting bot to copy nearly all of Jeff's work with minor variations at best and the Luxembourg court would have to consider that at least at legit as Jeff's own work.

Perhaps some cheeky person with ready access to such machines might flood the market with clone's of everything Jeff does and see how he feels about his own source of income being so easily taken away. Just a thought.

Post reply on HN