Timeline for If my photo is "copied" through a painting, is that a legal?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 27, 2011 at 11:48 | comment | added | labnut | @Reid, The LHOOQ-Mona Lisa example illustrates that substantial copying can nevertheless be fair use if original changes are made that are transformative | |
| Jan 27, 2011 at 11:24 | comment | added | labnut | Yes, substantiality is important. But in the case of the OP this was a given, the entire work had been copied. So all that was left was to apply the tests of originality and transformativeness to see if the derivative work nevertheless qualified as fair use (and we agree it does not). So I think the answer was complete. | |
| Jan 27, 2011 at 2:43 | comment | added | Reid | I worry that you are not fully answering the OP's question. I see the relevant quotation from Wikipedia (specifically, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derived_work) as: "Copyright infringement liability for a later work arises only if the later work embodies a substantial amount of protected expression taken from the earlier, underlying work." It's the "substantial amount of protected expression" that matters in this case, not whether it's original and transformative enough to be a derived work. | |
| Jan 25, 2011 at 16:03 | history | edited | labnut | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 198 characters in body
|
| Jan 25, 2011 at 14:47 | history | answered | labnut | CC BY-SA 2.5 |