T1B

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 11:15 pm https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_argum ... 022/21-869

88Nazi42, great post.

Jsc810 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 11:24 pm How should the Court rule, my friend?

I think the Warhol party’s position is more difficult to support than the photographer’s position. But it is a close case (as most Fair Use cases tend to be). Can you imagine if grabbed Annie Leibovitz‘a entire portfolio and started selling modified versions of her photographs that I added colors and doodles on?

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 1:44 am doodles

[rant]Our copyright laws are out of control. Big business (e.g., Disney) has paid off legislators to modify the statutes and has effectively ruined the original intent. Works that should have been in the public domain long ago are still protected. Here is a good link to the history of the U.S. copyright law: https://www.arl.org/copyright-timeline/

Patents are difficult and expensive to obtain, and have a term that expires 20 years from the filing date of the application (with some exceptions). Copyrights spring into existence the moment a work is created and have a term that lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years (generally - there are other terms, all of which are looong).

The issue in the Warhol case relates to Fair Use and the creation of derivative works. A derivative work is one that is created by another using a prior work. The classic example is creating a movie from a book, which is a definite no go unless you have the book author's permission. But it also applies to other copyrighted works, like photographs, which can be modified. There was a dust up a few years ago when Shephard Fairey used an AP photographer's photo to create the Obama Hope poster:



The Fairey case settled when the judge indicated that Fairey was going to lose. Most of the same issues are present in the Warhol case (with the exception that the Warhol parties did not lie about the origin of the photograph and how it was modified).

If Warhol wins, photographers are probably fuct. If Warhol loses, lots of "artists" who copy others works and use them Warhol-style are probably fuct. I suspect that the Court will find some middle ground and create another twisted test that the lower courts will have to struggle with for decades.[/rant]

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Thu Mar 02, 2023 3:20 pm [rant]Our copyright laws are out of control. Big business (e.g., Disney) has paid off legislators to modify the statutes and has effectively ruined the original intent.
[/rant]

Big Business paying off lawmakers to modify legislation that are in place for the good of the public?

That's a really interesting rant in light of your former profession & recent events...

And the fact that he is a Nazi. He just doesn’t like Nazi stuff that effects him negativity.

IKYABWAI

Outstanding!

OTSAI