I read something that's even more mind blowing. The actual photographer claims at the time he took the picture he wasn't freelancing for AP, the implication is AP doesn't own the picture. But he is going to let it drop as we are talking about the 44th President of the United States here or something like that.
Since this is a fun chat and not a serious academic/legal discussion, allow me to cheat by quoting Wikipedia which seems to give some good insight here,
"To justify the use as fair, one must demonstrate how it either advances knowledge or the progress of the arts through the addition of something new. A key consideration is the extent to which the use is interpreted as transformative, as opposed to merely derivative."
To me, the painting is pretty transformative from the photo original. Of course, I will be interested to see what legal experts like Larry Lessig and others have to say and will lay out in a properly researched legal brief for further insights.
Ultimately, I think we shouldn't lose sight of the "intention of copyright [is] law to stimulate creativity for the enrichment of the general public".
加燦: transformative... right. "to stimulate creativity for the enrichment of the general public" hmm... well, then let's see what this case will turn out. i'm really interested in it.
相信大家都見過右圖那幅大選海報吧. 相信那位畫家怎也沒想到他的作品有天會把他帶上法庭.
10 comments:
I think it is fair use. And it is good to see Stanford Center's Fair Use Project is representing Fairey. It should be a good fight.
加燦: 你覺得fair use? 我覺得除非佢自己坐喺obama面前畫就fair use. 始終張相係source, 我覺得AP告得合理.
I read something that's even more mind blowing. The actual photographer claims at the time he took the picture he wasn't freelancing for AP, the implication is AP doesn't own the picture. But he is going to let it drop as we are talking about the 44th President of the United States here or something like that.
Fairey on the other hand is counter suing AP.
我覺得係 fair use 喎。始終佢唔算係偷左張相呀，用得okay 喎。
LCL: wow, this is intriguing...
石先生: 真係唔知. 不過如果幅相係AP擁有, 個graphic artist應該俾番credit張相.
MD: I went back and did a bit more digging, I think at least NYTIMES.COM mentions about it but I think I read it from pdnoline.com first.
LCL: thanks! :)
Since this is a fun chat and not a serious academic/legal discussion, allow me to cheat by quoting Wikipedia which seems to give some good insight here,
"To justify the use as fair, one must demonstrate how it either advances knowledge or the progress of the arts through the addition of something new. A key consideration is the extent to which the use is interpreted as transformative, as opposed to merely derivative."
To me, the painting is pretty transformative from the photo original. Of course, I will be interested to see what legal experts like Larry Lessig and others have to say and will lay out in a properly researched legal brief for further insights.
Ultimately, I think we shouldn't lose sight of the "intention of copyright [is] law to stimulate creativity for the enrichment of the general public".
加燦: transformative... right. "to stimulate creativity for the enrichment of the general public" hmm... well, then let's see what this case will turn out. i'm really interested in it.
情形就同哲古華拉幅大頭相俾人印喺商品一樣。
Post a Comment