[HN Gopher] Does Andy Warhol get same copyright treatment as Goo...
___________________________________________________________________
Does Andy Warhol get same copyright treatment as Google code?
Author : DyslexicAtheist
Score : 41 points
Date : 2021-04-23 20:50 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.hollywoodreporter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.hollywoodreporter.com)
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| Quoting 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.
| barbegal wrote:
| I can't see how using photos as a basis for artwork is fair use.
| If that were the case, advertising agencies wouldn't have to pay
| photographers or other asset creators, they could claim fair use
| for transforming those photos and assets into an advert which is
| a new piece of art.
| choeger wrote:
| What is the "interface" of an image and what is the
| "implementation"? In the Oracle case, the terms were clear. The
| interface is the set of rules that bind the implementation and
| its consumers. In the case of an image, this is inapplicable. One
| could try to determine the size of the image, its colors, and
| other physical parameters. But in the end, I fail to develop a
| useful abstraction that could serve as "interface". So, no, the
| case cannot be used as an argument, IMO.
| [deleted]
| peerless-app wrote:
| Interesting take from the Andy Warhol Foundation. Warhol could
| have drawn that from memory. He used an impression he had of
| existing source material (the photo) and changed it. He didn't
| copy it and then add on to it. It's an original work of art that
| didn't exist before.
|
| Copying code. That's seems more duplication for strictly the
| original intended purpose.
| lupire wrote:
| How is an impression not a copy?
| Causality1 wrote:
| The idea that someone who's been dead for thirty-four years and
| whose closest living relative is a grand-niece should have any
| legal standing in any regard is astoundingly perverse.
| Jaygles wrote:
| Would 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?
| retrac wrote:
| It's probably possible in most jurisdictions to implement
| voluntarily by holding the copyright with an incorporated
| cooperative or partnership, of which the original authors are
| the owners. Corporate bylaws would determine licensing,
| allocation of the revenue, transfer and other such questions.
| Some jurisdictions do not allow either waivable or transferable
| moral rights, which could make this either complicated or
| infeasible.
|
| In some jurisdictions, the copyright law has a mechanism for
| professional associations to be responsible for collecting the
| copyright within a certain area. Now that I think about it, the
| model seems like it might be adaptable to software.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_collective
| exporectomy wrote:
| You mean Goldsmith, not Prince?
|
| No because then anybody could siphon ownership of a work away
| from its owner just by copying it without permission and with
| these kinds of modifications. Do many different versions and
| gain many portions of ownership.
| Jaygles wrote:
| I did mistakenly state Prince instead of Goldsmith. But silly
| enough that sort of plays into my hypothetical. Prince would
| own his likeness, which he would use to claim partial
| ownership of Goldsmith's photo. And Goldsmith and Prince
| would have a claim on Warhol's usage of the photo/likeness.
|
| I don't think the situation you describe applies however.
| Someone wouldn't be able to siphon away ownership by using
| someone else's work. The person whose work is being used in
| the new work would be able to gain partial ownership of the
| new work. The author of the new work would only have
| ownership of their unique contributions, not ownership of the
| original work's contributions.
| kbutler wrote:
| It is known as a "derived work", not a split copyright.
|
| The copyright owner of the original owns that copyright,
| including of the elements incorporated into the derived work.
| The copyright to the creative elements of the derived work are
| controlled by the copyright holder of the derived work, which
| may have a longer period of validity than the original work
| copyright.
|
| To distribute the derived work while the original copyright is
| in force requires permission (license) of the original
| copyright holder, or a determination that the derivation is a
| fair use, which the Warhol Foundation is seeking.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| 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.
| appleflaxen wrote:
| this argument doesn't make any sense.
|
| a photo doesn't have an API.
| make3 wrote:
| I don't think it's that clear. The interface of a library is
| still part of the library, albeit a very small one (smallest
| possible to enable interoperability). So, the SCOTUS accepts
| that re-using part of a creation can be fair-use.
| infradig wrote:
| 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.
| Croftengea wrote:
| > In this sense what Warhol has done is transformative.
|
| Where is the line between blatant copying and transformation?
| If I take some photograph and just change colors can I claim
| I changed the photo's perception and thus sent a unique
| message? Maybe, but it's all about ideas in my head, not the
| changed photo itself. Same goes about many Warhol's works.
| They are just slightly changed copies of someone else
| copyrighted works and must be accompanied by art critiques
| explanations to be appreciated in full.
| iratewizard wrote:
| API stands for application programming interface. Or didn't
| you know?
| bonzini wrote:
| And the article says that the decision is not just about
| "the API" but about "the part of a copyrighted work that is
| recognizable to a wide public".
| gumby wrote:
| Stupid 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.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| 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.
| make3 wrote:
| The title is not clickbait, the reason the Warhol Foundation
| is using is what I think the parent is arguing is
| "clickbait".
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| That does not make any sense for any reasonable definition
| of clickbait.
| gumby wrote:
| I understand that the WF is incorrectly using the Java
| API decision (and tying it to media's favorite punching
| bag by citing google) but the Hollywood Reporter didn't
| have to go along -- they wrote a perfectly good article
| that didn't need that title.
| lupire wrote:
| HR is reporting accurately. The answer to the question is
| likely No.
| gumby wrote:
| I don't know why your comment was downvoted (I tried to
| rescue it) as you were responding to confusion due to my
| poorly written comment.
|
| I explained down thread what I had meant to say.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-23 23:00 UTC)