What are the copyright implications of this work?
Is it legal to distribute the stitched together frames without audio?
Do you think this project is going to get DMCAd off the internet?
Is it legal to distribute the stitched together frames without audio?
Do you think this project is going to get DMCAd off the internet?
Is it legal, as a transformative use? Probably not. Andy Warhol's estate just lost a fair use case in the U.S. Supreme Court.
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2023/may/18/andy-wa...
Warhol copied a portrait. Totally different issue.
"The supreme court [lol @ Anti-American Grauniad] focused on the specific use that allegedly infringed Goldsmith’s copyright – a license of Warhol’s work to Condé Nast – and said it was not transformative because it served the same commercial purpose as Goldsmith’s photo: to depict Prince in a magazine."
It is nonsense to claim the Guardian is anti American because their style guide eschews capitalisation. They also refer to the “UK supreme court” and to “the king” without excess capitalisation.
It's also possible they got permission, or even that they were paid to make this. MSCHF is well funded.