bbrhuft

bbrhuft

Lives in Ireland Dublin, Ireland
Joined on Apr 17, 2010

Comments

Total: 2, showing: 1 – 2
In reply to:

bbrhuft: So, to explain in lay terms - if this law was around in the earth 20th century, Pablo Picasso could have (if they fell out) sued Georges Braque for adopting, sorry, stealing his Cubist style, even if Braque's cubist paintings were of different subjects and scenes. It is the 'style' that's deemed copyright, not the subject of the photo (or indeed painting or sculpture).

Under this law, someone who invents an artistic style owns it's copyright, whether it's Red Bus-Gray Backgroundism or Pointillism, Cubism, Surrealism or any old -ism. This has huge ramifications not just for photography, a painter or sculptor or other artist could sue another artist for adopting the original artist's style.

As such, I agree with Jane Lambert blog entry - that this ruling contravenes article 9 (2) of TRIPS, which forbids the copyrighting of "ideas, procedures, methods of operation or mathematical concepts" i.e. ideas and procedures that form an artistic style.

This part:

"I have not found this to be an easy question but I have decided that the defendants' work does reproduce a substantial part of the claimant's artistic work. In the end the issue turns on a qualitative assessment of the reproduced elements. The elements which have been reproduced are a substantial part of the claimant's work because, despite the absence of some important compositional elements, they still include the key combination of what I have called the...

...visual contrast features...

...with the basic composition of the scene itself. It is that combination which makes Mr Fielder's image visually interesting. It is not just another photograph of clichéd London icons."

The "visual contrast features" are Red Subject on a Gray Background. I think is equivalent to an artistic style and as such, I think the Judge would have decided in the claimant's favour if he originated Cubism & used that effect to create a unique and "visually interesting" image. This is wrong.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2012 at 04:00 UTC

So, to explain in lay terms - if this law was around in the earth 20th century, Pablo Picasso could have (if they fell out) sued Georges Braque for adopting, sorry, stealing his Cubist style, even if Braque's cubist paintings were of different subjects and scenes. It is the 'style' that's deemed copyright, not the subject of the photo (or indeed painting or sculpture).

Under this law, someone who invents an artistic style owns it's copyright, whether it's Red Bus-Gray Backgroundism or Pointillism, Cubism, Surrealism or any old -ism. This has huge ramifications not just for photography, a painter or sculptor or other artist could sue another artist for adopting the original artist's style.

As such, I agree with Jane Lambert blog entry - that this ruling contravenes article 9 (2) of TRIPS, which forbids the copyrighting of "ideas, procedures, methods of operation or mathematical concepts" i.e. ideas and procedures that form an artistic style.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 26, 2012 at 02:48 UTC as 118th comment | 3 replies
Total: 2, showing: 1 – 2