Controversy - Hackdot

Re:Controversy by 6stringmerc on Tuesday October 25, 2022 @12:55PM (#33333164)

I am really, really tired of a large swath of journalists and intelligent people confusing the Fair Use concept whenever these cases come up. This, Goldiblox, and Blurred Lines are all headline cases where the defense was, in short, "you'll ruin art if this one case is found against the popular artist!" and that's it. No real legal footing to defend against the assertion the case in point is not fair use. The four factor test is clear. Plain English. Many folks don't bother to read it, so I suggest looking it up yourself and seeing it in the full context of the documentation.

Warhol deserves to lose, I put the odds at 85% Warhol will lose, and I'm doing my best not to lose my sanity with so many misinformed or willfully ignorant (Mike Masnick) to argue feelings versus facts. There are many more good Fair Use cases than this one, and that should start out every discussion or essay. It gets clicks, I understand, but it's also a game of whack-a-mole for me, because it's so pervasive.

I should've re-taken the LSAT and gotten that full ride to Pepperdine to pursue IP law...oh well...passion never dies. It's still relevant to my interests as a musician and creator. There are rules, Smokey...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Controversy by bigmattystyles on Tuesday October 25, 2022 @01:18PM (#33333462)

Did blurred lines argue fair use or did they claim they were different and just merely reminded of the Gaye song and the jury didn’t buy it?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Controversy by danaris on Tuesday October 25, 2022 @01:26PM (#33333569)

This shouldn't even be a case about Fair Use.

Lynn Goldsmith sold the photograph, with full rights, to Vanity Fair, which then commissioned Warhol to make the Prince artwork out of it.

Then, when Vanity Fair started doing stuff with it again in 2016, Goldsmith saw a chance to cash in, and sued...not Vanity Fair, no; the Warhol foundation, which guarantees a much higher-profile case, and presumably has more money.

This should, by all sanity, be, a simple, cut and dried contract case: Did the sale of the photograph to Vanity Fair include the (transferable) right to make derivative works, or did it not?

If the Supreme Court makes a ruling that affects Fair Use on this in any way, it's 100% because they wanted an excuse to do so. They have a very easy route to ruling on much narrower grounds, or kicking the case back to the lower courts.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Controversy by mlyle on Tuesday October 25, 2022 @02:16PM (#33334234)

> This should, by all sanity, be, a simple, cut and dried contract case: Did the sale of the photograph to Vanity Fair include the (transferable) right to make derivative works, or did it not?

If it didn't, then the fair use argument and decision is important.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Controversy by hansvm on Wednesday October 26, 2022 @10:13AM (#33344007)

Do you have a source for the rights being sold? I've only been able to find evidence that it was licensed, and the status quo for copyright is most photos have one and don't transfer it automatically on sale of any particular copy.

Unless there's an ulterior motive like trying to set a precedent to solidify the position of other works on shakier legal foundations, I don't know why the Warhol Foundation wouldn't take such a clear-cut defense if they actually owned those rights.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Controversy by danaris on Wednesday October 26, 2022 @11:12AM (#33344931)

I don't have one directly; my wife has been following this case (as she has a background in art and is getting a Museum Studies degree), and she reported this from some of the articles she read about it.

[ Parent | on HN ]