Hacker News Reader

Comment by ogou | Hacker News Reader

The lost Amiga art is never shown, in this article or any of the linked sources. The 9 images on that "lost" disk aren't actually displayed. The disk itself is the valuable object, kind of like Picasso signing a napkin. But, even the disk isn't shown. None of these articles say whether anybody tried reading the disk.

View on HN

Probably the files will be hoarded.

Previous discovered files from old floppies by AW, and also ones by Keith Haring was sold as "NFT". That had the positive side effect for me to be able to extract exact copies (although not original files).

See here: https://www.amigalove.com/viewtopic.php?t=2594

> original files

What's the difference between an original file and an exact copy?

Theft. But, ianal.

I think they mean the original amiga files, not the nft image which obviously right click save is the same as buying it .

yes thanks, that's what I meant

An original file would be the same file byte for byte in the original obsolete image format for example ILBM/IFF.

An exact copy would be a lossless PNG (for example) of the image, that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference by looking at it when it's displayed on a screen from the original.

Real vintage computing aficionados prefer a KryoFlux disk image, it's magnetic flux transitions produce a warmer image and hits the high photoreceptor notes in your retina.

KryoFlux digital technology will never match the quality of images on vinyl.

I wonder if they could be shared? Who owns the copyright? It would be the Warhol estate, no?

This person can sell the disks but I don’t think they are selling rights to the work on the disk. I think it might be similar to me selling you my DVD of Star Wars.

The Debbie Harry image at least, since Warhol displayed it in public without a copyright notice, is in the public domain.

Is that how it works?

It would be interesting to know, actually. Prior to 1989 copyright notices were required on works in the US, but historically no fine art that I'm aware of has had copyright notices. (I'm on my phone and have limited enthusiasm for searching in this UI...)

It's well-established that, before 1989, anything copyrightable required a copyright notice when first presented to the public or it immediately and irrevocably went into the public domain.

A classic case is a Picasso sculpture purchased by the city of Chicago in 1967. Prior to installation of the sculpture, city officials presented a model to the public. A copyright notice was put on a placard nearby, but not on the model. A lawsuit established that since there was no notice on the model, the design was in the public domain, and people could make postcards and posters of the sculpture freely, much to the city's dismay.

So yes, much of the fine art produced in the USA before 1989 is in the public domain.

(No longer on the phone...)

I'm seeing that between 1978 and 1989 works could receive copyright protection, regardless of the display of a notice, if they were registered within 5 years.[0] Otherwise everything I'm reading jibes w/ what you're saying.

So it is possible Warhol registered these works, in which case they would be protected by copyright until 2057.

Edit: A quick search w/ LOC's "Official Public Catalog" through "Visual Material" registered to "Warhol Andy" after 1984 doesn't return any titles that look like they'd be these images. He definitely registered a ton of stuff (as would have been required for the time).

[0] https://copyright.universityofcalifornia.edu/use/public-doma....)

You're partly right. In that time period you not only had to register, you also had to make a good faith effort to add copyright notices to the works you wanted protected.

The copyright registration database is online [0]. He only registered a few of his art works, and these digital images are not among them.

edit: his estate registered a bunch of stuff after he died, but registration doesn't bring things back out of the public domain for pre-1977 works, or things beyond the 5-year threshold for works 1977-1989

[0] https://cocatalog.loc.gov

How did they handle things like music played on the radio? I've never heard a copyright notice on the radio for recorded or live music.

Performance of a work was not considered publication for copyright purposes. A copyright notice on published sheet music is how you got protection.

Sound recordings were not eligible for copyright protection at all until 1972.

Yes, that's how it worked before 1989. In that year the law was changed so that creators now obtain copyright automatically without any requirements for notice or registration.

If the linked article is accurate and Warhol gave a disk containing the images to an engineer without a copyright notice on the disk or in the disk's contents, and without any explicit restrictions on redistribution, those images are in the public domain as well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com