Because otherwise, you could end up with a situation where you literally kill the golden goose. Where you no longer have people creating that original work that other people would like to copy and use in their own efforts.
I have find it incredible that so many "artist" can't come up with their own creative compositions - and feel it necessary to steal photographers creative works to base their copyright infringing art upon. I don't know if this ruling will stand, but I hope it does.
p.1 #2 · How do you feel about this copyright case...
From everything I've read about him, he is a total douchebag that deserves to be knocked down. Others of his ilk have decided that anything on the Internet is actually abandoned and up for grabs to use for their own purposes.
p.1 #3 · How do you feel about this copyright case...
Later on, Prince took famous books by other writers, slapped his own name on the cover in their place, and sold the result as a new work of art. "I mean a lot of people would probably say, 'Well, wait a minute, you really can't do this. You can't go out and buy a book and sign it, call it yours and sell it.' But for me, that's very easy to do," he said.
I'd like to hear Harlan Ellison's opinion on that. But let me don my asbestos earmuffs first.
Because otherwise, you could end up with a situation where you literally kill the golden goose. Where you no longer have people creating that original work that other people would like to copy and use in their own efforts.
But I don't want to create work that other people would like to copy and use in their own efforts. If they do want to copy my work, they can ask me for permission.
If the lower court ruling stands, it could have implications far beyond the art world. Take the search engine Google, which filed its own friend of the court brief in the case. In order to help you find what you're looking for on the Internet, Google has to copy a lot of copyrighted material — without commenting on it at all. Google's lawyers say a narrower reading of fair use could be "dangerous" to the company's business model. That's just one more thing the Second Circuit court may have to consider when it hears the case Monday
No, the courts have already ruled that Google's use of thumbnails is fair as a directory
p.1 #4 · How do you feel about this copyright case...
It just seems that those with the money can assert their usurped rights, and the actual person that should have his/her copyright protected is SOL. Like how Mannie Garcia let the bastards grind him down with a couple years of expensive litigation.
IMO, It is the blatant theft, and then the false claim of "their artistic talent" that makes this and other similar copyright cases so annoying. Perhaps a bad analogy, but I think it fits. Suppose an itunes type music service stole their content from other musicians, and then sold them under their own name as original works. That roughly is the equivalent of what is occurring here.
p.1 #8 · How do you feel about this copyright case...
IMO, It is the blatant theft, and then the false claim of "their artistic talent" that makes this and other similar copyright cases so annoying. Perhaps a bad analogy, but I think it fits. Suppose an itunes type music service stole their content from other musicians, and then sold them under their own name as original works. That roughly is the equivalent of what is occurring here.
I think "Just what is it that makes today's homes so different, so appealing?" is more analogous to one of Weird Al Yankovic's musical parodies.
p.1 #9 · How do you feel about this copyright case...
Readymades, Dada collage, Found Art
This is nothing new, and if removed from the context, manipulated, and applied to an entirely new narrative, not really as scandalous as many believe for the art world to tolerate, embrace, and ultimately invest in. I'm not speaking on behalf of the rest of society.
It's been going on [and accepted] for a long time. Applying his name to author's works without rendering the books differently was a brazen act, however.
Just pay the photographer a usage fee and move on.
p.1 #14 · How do you feel about this copyright case...
I have a question for some of the old timers. Getty sent a memo back in January about the lawsuit filed against them for images sold with a Le Corbusier chair in them. All images with the chair were to be removed from the image bank, immediately.
Steve Steigman's most iconic photograph is the Maxell 'Blown Away Guy' sitting in the chair. The image was so successful for Steigman and Maxell that it was licensed for use on posters, magnets, button, t-shirts, etc.
Does anyone know if Steigman had to first pay for use of the chair before profiting so extravagantly from the photo? I only ask because Le Corbusier made such a stink with Getty (and won the suit, too). Maybe at the time, he didn't, and Getty was the scapegoat this time around for Le Corbusier?
The only one I did not get instantly was "Starvation in Sudan," most likely because I simply have not seen it frequently enough. Interesting...as a parlor trick. But what one reviewer says:
Pavel Maria Smejkal goes a step further and forces us to reconsider the veracity of historical images and the photographer’s role by digitally removing the people that made these images resonant. What is left is the scene as it might have looked just minutes before or after the photographer passed by. These images are reminiscent of a time, before Photoshop, when photographs were believed to be a reflection of reality. Mr. Smejkal’s alterations question whether photographs should be viewed as accurate representation.
That's all just a load of tripe intended to give clever Photoshop work more importance than being merely a parlor trick. If all there is to what Smejkal does, I would not say it reaches the requirements of Fair Use.
Let's remember, too, that within US copyright law there is the very wide category of "derivative work." I would say this work is not Fair Use, it's a derivative work...valid as a work of art but requiring permission from the original artist.
p.1 #16 · How do you feel about this copyright case...
Does anyone know if Steigman had to first pay for use of the chair before profiting so extravagantly from the photo? I only ask because Le Corbusier made such a stink with Getty (and won the suit, too). Maybe at the time, he didn't, and Getty was the scapegoat this time around for Le Corbusier?
There is a lot of risk avoidance that causes interesting questions never to be ruled by law. US copyright laws do not cover "utilitarian" articles. That's why fashion designs are not copyrighted in the US--because clothing is considered "utilitarian."
And that's also why most chair designs are not copyrighted in the US. So at what point does the design of a utilitarian object reach the point of being copyrighted art?
We can see why a plain, white tee-shirt design would not be copyrighted; it's a bit harder, though, to rationalize some of the utterly non-wearable stuff we see on some runways not being copyrighted for reason of being categorically "utilitarian." Yet, theater costume design is copyrighted (the costumes of "Cats," understandable...the costumes of, say, "Death of a Salesman?" Hmmm.).
So when does the design of a chair reach copyrighted status? I'd like to have seen that one argued in US court, which is far less restrictive than French copyright law (which, we remember, does copyright fashion designs as well as the lights of the Eiffel Tower).
p.1 #17 · How do you feel about this copyright case...
You're probably right about the case not holding-up in US courts. It's interesting what is and is not considered copyright-protected property. I studied a bit of it in college (Graphic Design).
For instance, if you copyright a logo, you've done little to protect it, creatively speaking, because its a mark of trade, or a "trademark". TM's cover design, typefaces, color palette, 'creativity' (which is completely subjective), as well as the distinguishability of it in the marketplace (reduction of confusion from other brands). However, many people don't understand the distinction, and do not take appropriate measures to protect themselves.
However, from a legal stance, I think copyright offers more protection. Weird, gray area.
