I had no idea who this artist is. So out of curiosity I asked AI to give me "highly detailed painting of Mount Fuji by Yayoi Kusama" and I was quite impressed by what I saw:
Is this derivative art? Is it art?
Yayoi Kusama
If they did that, the Court would be just ducking their primary responsibility - to interpret the law in the context of the facts before the Court. The Court's job is to come to a decision. If the result of that decision isn't to the legislature's taste, the legislature has the power to change the law.
Only coffee cans? You really don't get away from your computer much, do you?
Robert Adams has been mentioned quite a bit on this website lately. Here's something from one of his essays:
"For every Atget, Stieglitz, Weston, or Brandt who remain visionary to the end, there is an Ansel Adams who, after a period of extraordinary creativity, lapses into formula."
I had no idea who this artist is. So out of curiosity I asked AI to give me "highly detailed painting of Mount Fuji by Yayoi Kusama" and I was quite impressed by what I saw:
View attachment 313193
Is this derivative art? Is it art?
The Supreme court might say that the word transformative is not clear enough and send the whole thing back to Congress to re-write the law to include a specific description of what's allowed. They'd only apply it to this case so previous decisions would stand as decided earlier.
If they did that, the Court would be just ducking their primary responsibility - to interpret the law in the context of the facts before the Court. The Court's job is to come to a decision. If the result of that decision isn't to the legislature's taste, the legislature has the power to change the law.
Why would they bother if they figured it was already decided constitutionally?
Courts have ruled that laws must be clear and not open to different interpretations. The public should not need a law degree to understand its rules. If they do not meet these standards, legislation will be declared null and void by the court. So if the court agrees that in this case it's transformative or not, will the next time be open to similar confusion? If so, the Supremes should throw out the legislation.
I had no idea who this artist is. So out of curiosity I asked AI to give me "highly detailed painting of Mount Fuji by Yayoi Kusama" and I was quite impressed by what I saw:
View attachment 313193
Is this derivative art? Is it art?
Only coffee cans? You really don't get away from your computer much, do you?
Continued argumentative bickering like this will bring heavy moderation.What do you not understand about a light touch of humor. You must have a glum life.
I should also add that the court determines what laws mean separately from their constitutionality. If a law is vague, such as may be in copyright acts, they can rule the law unenforceable and send it back to the Congress to change it if they want. Otherwise, the law will die.
Of course, copyrights and patents are particularly interesting, as they are required by our constitution. But Congress defines its parameters such as the length a patent or copyright exists, transformative requirements, etc.
Courts have ruled that laws must be clear and not open to different interpretations. The public should not need a law degree to understand its rules. If they do not meet these standards, legislation will be declared null and void by the court. So if the court agrees that in this case it's transformative or not, will the next time be open to similar confusion? If so, the Supremes should throw out the legislation.
There is no such jurisdiction in the Courts - either yours or ours. If legislation is within the Constitutional authority of the legislature that enacted it, the Courts must interpret it as best as they can. They often complain about poor legislation, but can't "throw it out". They are pretty good though at finding ways to get around problems using the particulars of the case before them.
More central to the subject of the thread, the issue of "transformative" work is an example of how important the role of the courts can be. Andy Warhol's silk screen images use a process which is technologically similar, but different, from the process used to create the original image. Vanity Fair then used a different process to arrange and distribute the Andy Warhol work. The Courts have the ability to interpret the copyright legislation in light (pun intended) of the effects of time and technological change on the market for copyright, and the interests protected by it. The Supreme Court will have to decide the issue here, and if the industry, public and the legislators don't like the result, then the political process to change the law can be used.
Matt, are you a lawyer?
I don't know about great britain, but in America laws are thrown out if they're vague. There's a doctrine of vagueness. If it's not clear, it won't be allowed by the courts and the law will be considered null and void. See link.There is no such jurisdiction in the Courts - either yours or ours. If legislation is within the Constitutional authority of the legislature that enacted it, the Courts must interpret it as best as they can. They often complain about poor legislation, but can't "throw it out". They are pretty good though at finding ways to get around problems using the particulars of the case before them.
More central to the subject of the thread, the issue of "transformative" work is an example of how important the role of the courts can be. Andy Warhol's silk screen images use a process which is technologically similar, but different, from the process used to create the original image. Vanity Fair then used a different process to arrange and distribute the Andy Warhol work. The Courts have the ability to interpret the copyright legislation in light (pun intended) of the effects of time and technological change on the market for copyright, and the interests protected by it. The Supreme Court will have to decide the issue here, and if the industry, public and the legislators don't like the result, then the political process to change the law can be used.
I had no idea who this artist is. So out of curiosity I asked AI to give me "highly detailed painting of Mount Fuji by Yayoi Kusama" and I was quite impressed by what I saw:
View attachment 313193
Is this derivative art? Is it art?
It worked for Ansel, how do you stack up to Ansel?
Quite favorably, but I'm not going to show you my work because it might get stolen. Come to my house if you want to see it.
This has all been building up for awhile. The reason is the blurring of the line now that technology like Photoshop makes it just so darn easy to reconfigure prior work. The whole meaning and scope of a copyright needs to be re-thought and re-standardized, especially with respect to visual content. There has no doubt been a prior string of attempts to get the Supreme Court involved in sorting it out. But that's hard to do not only because the technology itself is constantly evolving, but due to the level of expertise needed to accurately assess and describe what is going on. But a lawsuit aimed at the Warhol Trust makes a lot of sense because so much money in potentially involved, and it constitutes a conspicuous test case.
The parallel issue, inevitably not far behind, is going to be the privacy issue, namely, to what extend a person's privacy can be pirated or exploited due to all the rabid proliferation of new digital applications sticking its nose in every aspect of our personal lives. Heck, anyone can even go on Google Earth and see what cars you park in your own driveway.
I don't know about great britain, but in America laws are thrown out if they're vague. There's a doctrine of vagueness. If it's not clear, it won't be allowed by the courts and the law will be considered null and void. See link.
The Supreme court can't sort it out. They don't write the laws or legislate. It's Congress representing the people that have to clearly define the limits and where violations of copyright begin and end. They write the statutes, not the courts.
If the statutes are not clear, then people will be afraid to transform existing work to try new things from it, something that Congress apparently wants. So free speech will be impinged as people fear getting sued not knowing how far they can go. If Congress makes it clear, then artists will be able to expand copyrighted photos without hurting the originator of the copyright or worrying about getting sued. Both sides will know where they stand.
I'm not in Great Britain, and our law is not the law of Great Britain. Just as in the US, when Canada was created we adopted the law of England but our law has evolved on its own in the 150+ years since.
In fact, the English law that Canada brought into our law was about 90 years more advanced than the version of English law that the US incorporated into its law, due to the relative ages of our two countries.
The link you site is entirely inapplicable, because it deals with Criminal law. Laws that impose a criminal standard are much, much, much more strictly construed, and where there is uncertainty, always construed in favour of the accused.
It is very important not to confuse the principles applied to Criminal law issues with the far more extensive and pervasive law concerning all the non Criminal law. Criminal law is a very small and narrow subset of the law which only involves issues between private individuals and the government/Crown in its historic role as the protector of the public peace.
In contrast, the government is rarely a party to a copyright law dispute, save and except the relatively rare situation where it happens to own or claim a private interest in a copyright, or has been involved in a breach of someone's copyright interests.
When it comes to disputes before them, Courts decide things. That is their role.
Some times they have to decide things based on principles, because one part of a statute implies one thing, while another implies something else, and, due to the peculiarities of the facts before them, no part of the statute is entirely and exactly on point. Courts aren't allowed to just throw up their hands and say to the litigants before them: "we can't figure it out - work it out between themselves".
Those drawings and much of his early works are fantastic. I agree that a visit to the museum is time well spent, especially if your exposure to his work is mostly soup cans and screen prints.... go to his museum as it is worth the effort. I am especially fond of his early drawings.
I'm not in Great Britain, and our law is not the law of Great Britain. Just as in the US, when Canada was created we adopted the law of England but our law has evolved on its own in the 150+ years since.
In fact, the English law that Canada brought into our law was about 90 years more advanced than the version of English law that the US incorporated into its law, due to the relative ages of our two countries.
The link you site is entirely inapplicable, because it deals with Criminal law. Laws that impose a criminal standard are much, much, much more strictly construed, and where there is uncertainty, always construed in favour of the accused.
It is very important not to confuse the principles applied to Criminal law issues with the far more extensive and pervasive law concerning all the non Criminal law. Criminal law is a very small and narrow subset of the law which only involves issues between private individuals and the government/Crown in its historic role as the protector of the public peace.
In contrast, the government is rarely a party to a copyright law dispute, save and except the relatively rare situation where it happens to own or claim a private interest in a copyright, or has been involved in a breach of someone's copyright interests.
When it comes to disputes before them, Courts decide things. That is their role.
Some times they have to decide things based on principles, because one part of a statute implies one thing, while another implies something else, and, due to the peculiarities of the facts before them, no part of the statute is entirely and exactly on point. Courts aren't allowed to just throw up their hands and say to the litigants before them: "we can't figure it out - work it out between themselves".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?