Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique
1–10 of 162 posts
Re: Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique
#2That 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.
Re: Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique
#3not an artist but, reading between the lines, her real fight is against people who are copying. and profiting from her work.
that said, i agree with the ruling. there are chances that other artists who haven't seen her art before would come up with that scene. or that specific pose. not the other artistic choices, but the pose and the flowers, and even the kimono, yes.
Re: Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique
#4That 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.
I’ll agree that the pose isn’t original, but at the same time Jeff Dieschburg should be shamed forever for his blatant rip-off of her work. It’s the friggin The Office meme, “They’re both the same.” What an ass.
Re: Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique
#5That 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.
I’ll agree that the pose isn’t original, but at the same time Jeff Dieschburg should be shamed forever for his blatant rip-off of her work. It’s the friggin The Office meme, “They’re both the same.” What an ass.
Indeed. It’s basically that highly offensive thing you see on TikTok where someone simply mirrors a video they steal.
And I think there is always plenty of room to discuss what’s legal and what’s right qs two separate things.
Re: Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique
#6Imagine a problem that someone wouldn’t have if copyright protection had never existed to begin with? Here’s a great example of one.
Re: Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique
#7That 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...
Re: Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique
#8I 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/pic/orig/media%2FFjY3coxaYAImURa.jpg) wasn't identical and should be allowed. It's clearly directly influenced by the original, but if someone else wants to create something similar that's just art. It's what all artists do and always have done.
If artists couldn't create their own versions of things captured in works by other artists, new art could not exist.
No one should be able to copyright a "style" or a pose just like no one should be able to copyright a genre or a camera angle.
Re: Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique
#9not an artist but, reading between the lines, her real fight is against people who are copying. and profiting from her work. that said, i agree with the ruling. there are chances that other artists who haven't seen her art before would come up with that scene. or that specific pose. not the other artistic choices, but the pose and the flowers, and even the kimono, yes.
Copyright is not a patent.
If you paint a copy of Mona Lisa, it will be under your copyright, because of the provenance. There will be no doubt that it's your work, not Leonardo's.
Re: Copyright denied because the model’s pose is not unique
#10That 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...
I don’t understand a lot of these pieces. But I’ve also experienced tremendous emotion over something that I try to share with others who give the same kind of “uhh what?” response. So I accept that I’m probably not the audience.
That being said I think there’s probably a few things that happen sometimes:
1. Money laundering
2. Rich people buying status
3. Rich people figuring out what exactly to do with their money
4. like crypto and other things, it has value because a community has decided it has value. It doesn’t have to make any sense. It’s self-fulfilling.