Hacker News Reader

Comment by fenomas | Hacker News Reader

I think you're confused, or at least talking past GP. It's not copyright infringement to create a derivative work - e.g. by adding illustrations to a book. What's infringement is if you copy and distribute the derivative work without a license to the original. GP was asking about the former, not the latter.

View on HN

There's a case where a Japanese venue commissioned an art piece, wrapped it, artists sued the venue, and the court ordered the art be restored to the original state on the ground of copyright. I think it was a couple feet tall cat statue or something.

It's somewhat of a case by case basis matter and it's rarely brought to the court, but just because you own a piece doesn't always make it all to your discretion to modify it.

us code 106 gives the copyright holder exclusive rights of derivative works

so yes even at home, making art for a book you dont have permission for, and isnt seen by anyone but you, is still copyright infringement

Yes, but that doesn't mean it's "illegal" to create a derivative work. It just means that the original author has rights they can exert over what you make.

I dont know everything i read online says its copyright infringement to create derivative works, outside of stuff like parodies, fair use and getting permission.

> outside of stuff like .. fair use

That's the important bit - the things you called illegal a few comments back were obvious examples of (presumptive) fair use.

More generally, whether something is copyright infringement can be vague and subjective - so the bar for going around saying "yes, that is infringement" is not "does it meet a description I read online?". The bar is: "have courts previously ruled that a very similar case was infringement?".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com