Comment

Comment by thegooley

An interesting viewpoint, but I think the differentiation here lies in the degree of "artistic" creation. Put 10 photographers in a room with Miles Davis and you'll get 10 pretty distinct photographs of the man. Have 10 people create a pixelated version of a photograph, and you'll have 10 pretty similar results.

Creating a pixelated version of this photograph is more akin to taking a photograph of the Mona Lisa - sure you can get a cool angle or do it with infrared film to get a different color palate, but it's still a picture of someone else's original work. You wouldn't say that the Miles Davis cover photo is "based on a Miles Davis concert", but rather it was created _at_ a Miles Davis concert.

Similarly, in music, remixing a song can be a very creative process - but it is still a derivative work in that it wouldn't exist without the original which was created "from scratch".

(Disclosure: I am/was a photographer who used to earn a living solely from licensing my photos for editorial purposes)

Edit: I'm not attempting to discuss copyright laws (which are pretty clear), but rather the philosophy and justification behind the creation and copying of artistic works.

parent thegooley 15 years ago

Discussion

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton