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

141–150 of 162 posts

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

#141

Post by newaccount74 »

unglaublich wrote: post #112
newaccount74 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You seem to have a lot of trust in the Luxembourg district court :)

Maybe there is something in the proceedings that explains the absurd ruling, but I really doubt it. We'll see how the story plays out. I don't think this judgement will hold.

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

#142

Post by _cenw »

blagie wrote: post #138

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 cultur…

The US copyright model is for the advantage of rights holders (i.e. die Disney corporation), not individual creatives. Especially when many creatives do not work alone and contribute their output to a larger product (like a movie). Their inclusion as individuals seems almost incidental.

In opposition to a place like Germany, where you can't ever fully reassign copyright and always retain some rights (Urheberpersönlichkeitsrecht), for instance to object to a use that reflects badly on you or to insist on being credited. Some of these rights should really be standard; the games industry for instance makes it a habit to strike people off the credits as punishment for leaving a project early or attempted unionizing (as attempted with Raven Software QA workers recently).

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

#143

Post by moistly »

karussell wrote: post #101

It seems Jeff Dieschburg copied others too: https://twitter.com/bekka/status/1532097291330281472

Oh, that cinches it: Jeff Dieschburg is a word I can’t use here without being banned. My hope is that he is drummed out of the art world, that he is repeatedly sued by the original artists, and that his name lives on in disrepute. What an absolute turd of a human being.

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

#144

Post by throwaway5813 »

_cenw wrote: post #142
blagie wrote: post #138

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 cultur…

The US copyright model is for the advantage of rights holders (i.e. die Disney corporation), not individual creatives. Especially when many creatives do not work alone and contribute their output to a larger product (like a movie). Their inclusion as individuals seems almost incidental. In opposition to a place like Germany, where you can't ever fully reassign copyright and always retain some rights (Urheberpersönlic…

Everyone does that. MIT too.

At some point, look at the git history for who wrote Open edX, and at some point, look at the git history for who created the first edX course. Compare that to the official narrative, and try to find their names anywhere in PR materials.

https://github.com/openedx/edx-platform/commits/master

http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/gjs/6.002x/6002x.tar.g...

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

#145

Post by _cenw »

throwaway5813 wrote: post #144
_cenw wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US copyright model is for the advantage of rights holders (i.e. die Disney corporation), not individual creatives. Especially when many creatives do not work alone and contribute their output to a larger product (like a movie). Their inclusion as individuals seems almost incidental. In opposition to a place like Germany, where you can't ever fully reassign copyright and always retain some rights (Urheberpersönlic…

Everyone does that. MIT too. At some point, look at the git history for who wrote Open edX, and at some point, look at the git history for who created the first edX course. Compare that to the official narrative, and try to find their names anywhere in PR materials. https://github.com/openedx/edx-platform/commits/master http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/gjs/6.002x/6002x.tar.g...

The point was more about deliberately withholding credit as a form of punishment. That many less deliberate instances of this would (and in Germany, do) occur even if such a legal obligation was in place is clear, it's just a matter of them being actionable.

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

#146

Post by djbebs »

tgv wrote: post #58
luxuryballs wrote: post #6

Imagine a problem that someone wouldn’t have if copyright protection had never existed to begin with? Here’s a great example of one.

Copyright does address a very real issue. How would you solve it?

Copyright addresses no issue, it only causes them.

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

#147

Post by vr46 »

SanjayMehta wrote: post #19
vr46 wrote: post #14

There was a clear precedent set many years ago when an artist did this exact thing and lost in court. The photograph was of a Native American in profile with specific headgear that was copied into a computer illustration. We are talking 1990s here. No idea how to find it.

I went searching for this case and found this fascinating article on advertising. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/509019

That was interesting nevertheless. We really could do a massive public service by finding that case. The illustration won an award - advertising I think - and that's how the whole issue came to light. The illustrator genuinely didn't realize he was infringing on copyright as he was working in a different medium.

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

#148

Post by abetusk »

andirk wrote: post #116
abetusk wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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..…

Yeah, so maybe it's a lot murkier then we all understand. From a previous response, it looks like this case sidestepped the issue by ruling the photograph was not original enough so didn't fall under copyright protection (I guess?).

I think the Prince prints from Andy Warhol are a better example [0]. I see a lot of articles from Oct 2022, so is this case still being tried?

Copyright is a quagmire of "rule-of-thumb" policies and, in my opinion, often invalid assumptions. Understanding what and what does not fall under copyright protection is really about what the legal system understands it to be and how to convince a judge. I don't really like arguing "what's correct" when it comes to copyright violation as that's irrelevant, it's really about "what the legal system thinks is correct".

One of the few pieces on copyright that's made sense to me is the "What Colour are your bits?" article by mksala [1] which, if I'm remember correctly, is arguing that it's less about the artifact produced than the provenance of how it was created.

[0] https://www.npr.org/2022/10/12/1127508725/prince-andy-warhol...

[1] https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23

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

#149

Post by autoexec »

jasonboyd wrote: post #59
autoexec wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's clear that one is a mirror image of the other with minor Photoshop edits. I think it's clear to just about everybody. I don't believe you are arguing in good faith.

> It's clear that one is a mirror image of the other with minor Photoshop edits.

You're wrong. I'd agree that minor photoshop edits would be a different story, but this is a painting. Oil on wood.

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

#150

Post by autoexec »

matsemann wrote: post #110
autoexec wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The difference is between crafting something transformative and a reproduction. If you simply typed up the same story (even with minor changes) you haven't created anything. Turning a typed work into a typed work isn't really meaningful. A better analogy might be if you retold the story yourself aloud, from memory, making changes by adding characters and omitting scenes that you didn't think were as exciting and adding new ones.

That's how stories were shared before copyright. Someone would tell a story, and someone else would hear it and later share it with others and each time it was told by someone new changes would be made. Each storyteller would tell their own version, including the best parts from other versions and trying new changes on each audience and gradually the story would evolve as the most popular changes would be included more often and propagate farther.

Post reply on HN