Hacker News Reader

Comment by jawns | Hacker News Reader

A couple of days ago, I noted my surprise that a person could be sued for copyright infringement by quoting even a single line of a song:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10672934

How the heck can Richard Prince's use of other people's works be considered fair use if quoting a single line from a song is not considered fair use?

View on HN

Because of the wonderful way copyrights work on photographs. When I take a picture, I own the copyright of that picture, even if it's of a copyrighted thing. That's how photographers stay in business (think about school photos, or wedding photos, with studio logos and expensive "packages").

If I take your picture, your image belongs to me. So it follows that if I take a picture of your picture, that also belongs to me.

Isn't copyright a wonderfully logical instrument?

> Isn't copyright a wonderfully logical instrument?

This prompts me to think of the case where instead of taking a photo-of-a-photo, one takes a "series of photos in rapid succession of a series of photos also in rapid succession", a la taking a camcorder into a movie theater.

A photograph of a photograph is a derivative work, and has to be ruled as fair use to be legal, you don't automatically own the copyright.

https://www.lumendatabase.org/topics/16

>> If I take your picture, your image belongs to me. So it follows that if I take a picture of your picture, that also belongs to me.

As was pointed out in the article, only if its transformative in some way does copyright give you cover under the "fair use" doctrine:

Prince’s appropriation was “transformative” enough to qualify for fair use. In the words of the presiding judge: “[Prince’s] work adds new meaning...and the fair use doctrine guarantees [him] breathing space.”

A simple picture of a picture without alteration would still be considered infringement under the current copyright laws.

> A simple picture of a picture without alteration would still be considered infringement under the current copyright laws.

Ever seen it happen IRL? Got a link?

It doesn't "follow." You can't just take a picture of a picture, that works be illegal and a copyright infringement. A photograph is only copyrighted if it had a creative aspect. If you duplicate a photo by taking a picture of it, your picture is merely a copy. His screenshots are merely copies. He gets around the issues by "transforming" them. Adding a quote isn't enough, imo.

Because there is no RIAA for photographers. Because Richard Prince isn't tussling with Stevie Nicks. The law is not applied equally. You get special treatment if you're rich.

And how can Richard Prince get away with obvious photographic re-use when Shephard Fairey can't adapt a painting from a picture?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster

That was settled out of court, although, apparently "A judge urged a settlement, stating that AP would win the case."

I'm unclear on whether that was before or after it was revealed that Fairey had fabricated evidence.

The legal system perpetually baffles me.

If you're just quoting it, and not doing anything transformative with it (or other things protected by fair use e.g. criticism), then yes that's infringing. Per the article a judge ruled that Prince's work was transformative.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com