81–90 of 162 posts
> 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 court with a Luxembourgish judge, the outcome was almost inevitable.
In Germany for example (this will ignore a lot of nuance!), there is no applying or denying of copyright. If you created something, you own the copyright. It is even in the German name: "Urheberrecht" literally translates to "right of the creator". It can not be sold. And then there is the second concept of "Verwertungsrecht" or "Nutzungsrecht", which defines who has the right to "utilize" something (often for monetary gain). That fundamentally also starts with the person that created something, but can be sold (either before or after the work is done, for example via a contract).
As far as I know the US copyright system is very different from that, where you have to register or apply, and put (c) on things to show you own the right to moetize (this is even more vague, that is just the impression I got in the last 20 years of being on the internet).
In Germany the big discussion then is around "Schöpfungshöhe" - "threshold of originality" in English maybe - that decides if something is even in this system or not.
Is the discussion in the tweet about that really? If the work deserves to be in the system or not? If so, for "right of creator" or "right to utilize"?
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…
How does the copyright system in Luxembourg work? In Germany for example (this will ignore a lot of nuance!), there is no applying or denying of copyright. If you created something, you own the copyright. It is even in the German name: "Urheberrecht" literally translates to "right of the creator". It can not be sold. And then there is the second concept of "Verwertungsrecht" or "Nutzungsrecht", which defines who has…
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 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…
Luxemburg is not some random backwards country
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…
....but this reasoning/ruling now apply to all other portraits?
How does the copyright system in Luxembourg work? In Germany for example (this will ignore a lot of nuance!), there is no applying or denying of copyright. If you created something, you own the copyright. It is even in the German name: "Urheberrecht" literally translates to "right of the creator". It can not be sold. And then there is the second concept of "Verwertungsrecht" or "Nutzungsrecht", which defines who has…
They're signatories to the Berne Convention[1] which gives you automatic copyright on "every production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain, whatever the mode or form of its expression" and also gives you control over rights for "the right to make adaptations and arrangements". Which I would understand to mean they can't say "copyright is void because of XYZ" - it was created, it is copyrighted. I'd imagine WIPO would slap this down.
> As far as I know the US copyright system is very different from that, where you have to register or apply
Since they're signed up to the Berne Convention, copyright is automatic but apparently there is an allowed "requirement that the right holder of a “United States work” have registered the work before initiating a lawsuit" (from [2])
[1] https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/summary_berne.html
[2] https://www.mediainstitute.org/2009/10/20/borderless-publica...
How does the copyright system in Luxembourg work? In Germany for example (this will ignore a lot of nuance!), there is no applying or denying of copyright. If you created something, you own the copyright. It is even in the German name: "Urheberrecht" literally translates to "right of the creator". It can not be sold. And then there is the second concept of "Verwertungsrecht" or "Nutzungsrecht", which defines who has…
In the US you do not need to register copyright unless you intend to file a copyright infringement lawsuit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. I am part of the local art community and there is this meme idea floating around that the artist owns everything about a work they make, even the idea. At present people are using this to bash on AI art and decry it as stolen. But this is mistaken, both from a legal sense (many aspects of a work are not copyrightable), and in a physics sense (you cannot control an idea in the minds of others, information wan…
>"and in a physics sense (you cannot control an idea in the minds of other," I think we should add the caveat "yet", to your quote. I imagine it's physiological to control ideas in people's brains if you could accurately and correctly map neurons to people's thoughts.