Comment by yazaddaruvala | Hacker News Reader

Comment by yazaddaruvala | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Drawing a copy of a copyrighted picture from memory, and then distributing that copy, would certainly normally be copyright infringement.

In US law, there is a nuance between Copyright and Trademark.

> Drawing a copy of a copyrighted picture from memory, and then distributing that copy

Would not necessarily be copyright infringement (it depends on a judge). For example, why Taylor Swift is able to re-record her music (the copyright is owned by a recording studio), as is, and can distribute the new version as "Taylor's Version" because she owns the copyright on the new version.

> (A logo may not be enough of a creative work to be copyrightable, but I assume that's not what you're getting at).

A logo is actually MORE protectable, through Trademark. Trademark is significantly MORE protected than Copyright.

In your example, if someone draws from memory a logo, they actually own the copyright, but it is still Trademark infringement and the trademark owner will be protected.

> In US law, there is a nuance between Copyright and Trademark.

It's not a nuance, it's a completely separate legal regime, and not what this conversation is about.

> Would not necessarily be copyright infringement (it depends on a judge).

Every law can be challenged in court, but a copy of a picture as-is is a pretty clear-cut case.

> For example, why Taylor Swift is able to re-record her music (the copyright is owned by a recording studio), as is, and can distribute the new version as "Taylor's Version" because she owns the copyright on the new version.

Nope. She's able to because there is a compulsory license for covers of songs that have already been published - something very different from them not being protected by copyright - and/or because she owns some of the rights. She may well be paying royalties on them. That compulsory license regime is specific to recorded music and does not apply to pictures.

> A logo is actually MORE protectable, through Trademark. Trademark is significantly MORE protected than Copyright.

"More" is a simplification; trademark laws are quite different from copyright laws, stronger in some ways and weaker in others (e.g. you can lose a trademark by not enforcing it, whereas you cannot lose a copyright that way). In any case, that's a distraction from the current topic.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com