Lemniscate Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 The Associated Press is suing the creator of the Obama "Hope" picture, a icture showing Barack Obama looking up, and colord red, white, and blue with the word Hope underneath.AP states that the drawing is based off of a picture taken by an AP photographer, and so violates Copyright Laws.The artist says that it the art falls under one of the exceptions to copyright law. Discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperial Blaze Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 How petty lol..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrometheusMFD Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 They have no case.Basing your artwork off of anything is protected under law, since you were the one who made the piece in question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OMGAKITTY Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 Sounds like bullcrap. AP must be having a slow newsweek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemniscate Posted February 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 Really?!?!?! That artist stole a copyrighted picture, and changed the colors on it, then sold it as his own!!!!! I think they have a case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harhar Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 Really?!?!?! That artist stole a copyrighted picture' date=' and changed the colors on it, then sold it as his own!!!!! I think they have a case.[/quote'] He did more then just change it's colors <_<He vectored it and some other things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemniscate Posted February 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 It is still the same image.They had rights to that image, and he decided to download it, edit it, and then resell it. That's like a bootleg DVD!!!! It's illegal!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OMGAKITTY Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 It is still the same image.They had rights to that image' date=' and he decided to download it, edit it, and then resell it. That's like a bootleg DVD!!!! It's illegal!!!![/quote'] Why has it taken AP so long to respond to this? That poster has been around for ages.I still think it's stupid. It's like if Campbell sued Andy Warhol over his art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemniscate Posted February 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 Okay, AP had to talk with lawyers, they had to verify the picture was a copy, they had to make a plan as to what to charge him for.Also, there is no time window in which to sue for Copyright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OMGAKITTY Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 Okay' date=' AP had to talk with lawyers, they had to verify the picture was a copy, they had to make a plan as to what to charge him for.Also, there is no time window in which to sue for Copyright.[/quote'] lol, if they needed experts to examine it to verify that it was indeed a copy, then I'd say then I say the artist has changed the picture significantly enough to call it his own. Also, waiting until now to charge him makes it look like they were saving this as a news article during a slow week. Which makes me really not care whether it's stolen or not. Besides, I liked that poster. :q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Lovegood Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 It is still the same image.They had rights to that image' date=' and he decided to download it, edit it, and then resell it. That's like a bootleg DVD!!!! It's illegal!!!![/quote'] Based is the key word here. Whats you first language? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrometheusMFD Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 Okay' date=' AP had to talk with lawyers, they had to verify the picture was a copy, they had to make a plan as to what to charge him for.Also, there is no time window in which to sue for Copyright.[/quote'] You still don't get it. Paintings and sculptures can be called your own when at least 30% of the original picture is changed (it's called "inspiration") This includes color, pose, subject, ect. AP has no case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemniscate Posted February 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 But the number of 30% is disputable.It has to be proven that enough of the picture was changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JoshIcy Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 Okay' date=' AP had to talk with lawyers, they had to verify the picture was a copy, they had to make a plan as to what to charge him for.Also, there is no time window in which to sue for Copyright.[/quote'] lol, if they needed experts to examine it to verify that it was indeed a copy, then I'd say then I say the artist has changed the picture significantly enough to call it his own. Lolz. Right there... Topic Ended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemniscate Posted February 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 They needed to take a look at the original picture to see if they were close enough.AP didn't want to look like idiots for making a bad lawsuit.It's not that the picture was changed enough that they didn't have a case, it is that the modified version was released long enough after the original that they had to check to see how close they actually were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OMGAKITTY Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 They needed to take a look at the original picture to see if they were close enough.AP didn't want to look like idiots for making a bad lawsuit.It's not that the picture was changed enough that they didn't have a case' date=' it is that the modified version was released long enough after the original that they had to check to see how close they actually were.[/quote'] They still look like idiots for bringing it up now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemniscate Posted February 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 Yes, but that is because they are made to look stupid, the lawsuit itself isn't frivolous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dark One Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 Yes' date=' but that is because they are made to look stupid, the lawsuit itself isn't frivolous.[/quote'] Even if it's not frivolous under the law, it still IS frivilous by the common definition. Who the funk cares? It's obviously a publicity stunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revan Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 To AP: Get a hobby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntar! Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 gets what he deserves. =/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemniscate Posted February 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 I don't understand how you can take the side of the artist here. He blatantly broke the law, and all you can say is "Get a hobby". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OMGAKITTY Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 Yes' date=' but that is because they are made to look stupid, the lawsuit itself isn't frivolous.[/quote'] Even if it's not frivolous under the law, it still IS frivilous by the common definition. Who the f*** cares? It's obviously a publicity stunt. This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyber Altair Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 Okay' date=' AP had to talk with lawyers, they had to verify the picture was a copy, they had to make a plan as to what to charge him for.Also, there is no time window in which to sue for Copyright.[/quote'] lol, if they needed experts to examine it to verify that it was indeed a copy, then I'd say then I say the artist has changed the picture significantly enough to call it his own. Also, waiting until now to charge him makes it look like they were saving this as a news article during a slow week. Which makes me really not care whether it's stolen or not. Besides, I liked that poster. :q Your dumb. Please go learn the copyright rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pikachu Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 Oh noes, it reminds me of DA and it's copyright rules! That guy should've taken another photo. *coughdumbasscough* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OMGAKITTY Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 Okay' date=' AP had to talk with lawyers, they had to verify the picture was a copy, they had to make a plan as to what to charge him for.Also, there is no time window in which to sue for Copyright.[/quote'] lol, if they needed experts to examine it to verify that it was indeed a copy, then I'd say then I say the artist has changed the picture significantly enough to call it his own. Also, waiting until now to charge him makes it look like they were saving this as a news article during a slow week. Which makes me really not care whether it's stolen or not. Besides, I liked that poster. :q You're dumb. Please go learn the copyright rule. fix'd. Oh noes' date=' it reminds me of DA and it's copyright rules! That guy should've taken another photo. *coughdumbasscough*[/quote'] not quite the same thing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.