Feminist Frequency steals artwork, refuses to credit owner. | Hacker News Reader

Feminist Frequency steals artwork, refuses to credit owner.

cowkitty.net

36 pointssergiotapia30 comments

I don't know that this is infringement -- at the very least, it's arguable that the use of the image is transformative (e.g. it's being used in a montage of criticism).

Just because something is used commercially doesn't make it non-fair use. That's just part of a 4 part test that courts apply: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/

I'm just guessing but I'd assume fair use laws are different in every country. If for example the content creator was based in the UK and the potential infringer was based in the US (and the content was digital and online) which countries fair use laws would apply?

I agree but also credit should be given where credit is due.

That's an ethical, not legal argument. (Unless we're talking about CC-licensed images requiring attribution.)

The part I'm wondering about is that this is a project about criticizing the depiction of women in video games. In the piece we're discussing, however, it's not from a video game. It's a fan art piece tributing a video game.

In any case, I'm disappointed in Sarkeesian for not even responding to the artist.

According to that site, the transformative factor pertains to transformation which adds to the original work. Nothing is being said about the original work in this case. In fact, the original work is not even being acknowledge as an original work. It is being used simply to invoke the character of which it is fan art. I don't see any way to construe that as "value added to the original by creating new information, new aesthetics, new insights, and understandings" where "the original" is Ms. Smith's fan art image.

I assumed it was chosen because it looks like a "cheesecake" (is that the right word?) pinup, not simply to invoke the character.

I'm assuming they didn't ask for permission for any of the other uses, which seem, at first glance, to be official promo images. And somehow, I don't feel that they should have to.

It feels like the author is personally offended, and is using the blog to stir controversy over an easy target.

That makes no sense to me, unless you overlooked that the author is the artist whose work was used without permission or attribution, and thought the author was just some third party jumping in to attack the target.

Yeah, and? Wouldn't you be offended if someone took your work, and then completely ignored you?

The last of the four:

> Another important fair use factor is whether your use deprives the copyright owner of income or undermines a new or potential market for the copyrighted work. Depriving a copyright owner of income is very likely to trigger a lawsuit.

I'm curious to know: would Sarkeesian's use of this piece as a criticism would negatively or positively affect the author's potential for future work? If anything, I'd guess the latter (I would forever after market my skills as being used in TED talks and such).

Fair use is mostly to allow reviews and criticism for created works. Not to keep culture vibrant. Using someones work, it its ENTIRETY as part of a montage isn't transformative.

Nothing here strikes of transformative, or fair use. It is someone copying someone else's work. And this has nothing to do with commercial vs non commercial

Statutory damages for willful copyright infringement go up to $150,000 per offense. Instead of complaining to a content thief who obviously doesn't care, the artist should be looking for a lawyer interested in taking this on for a cut. Then the donors to the kickstarter will at least know where their money went.

Except that it doesn't seem to be original work. So how are you going to maintain that your derivative work was fair use, which relies on being non-commercial, while suing someone for damages? Especially when the one who "stole" your work seems to have a better case for fair use.

"it doesn't seem to be original work"

You mean it's a depiction of an existing character from a game or something. That doesn't mean that it's not original artwork. I'm sure that would be a relevant issue in court, but that's why we have trials.

"which relies on being non-commercial"

As other posters here have pointed out, this is not true.

Her derivative work is not fair use. So she doesn't need to argue that. And the other person has NO case of fair use.

Before this goes entirely off the rails, lets keep in mind this is a discussion of copyright infringement.

Yep, and the appropriate response should be via the legal system, not inciting an internet witch hunt.

Appropriate? It's not for us to decide that. And the legal system is an imperfect remedy that is not available to all. Just guessing here, but perhaps the artist in question can't actually afford a legal team?

Further, if you actually read what the artist wrote, the wording is actually quite polite and gentle. It is not threatening and does not incite.

Oh? Well then by all means, let's all play pretend legal experts and decide the fate of the accused based on this single one-sided blog post. I'm sure that's never gone wrong before.

The culprit had plenty of time to resolve this issue, inciting a "witch hunt" will only spark a faster response from her.

You've just perfectly demonstrated my point. Accusation does not equal guilt, and there is no reason for any of us to believe it is on the accused to resolve anything at all.

Being a copyright issue the author is well within her rights to send a DMCA takedown and initiate legal proceedings, which is all the "spark" that is necessary for a timely and appropriate response.

There seems to be a major issue with artists having their work appropriated and stolen.

I wonder if there isn't a startup business model in here somewhere. An artist could sign up for a service that automatically does TinEye or a Google reverse image search for images that they upload, and then flags suspicious uses for the artist to review.

If it's fair use then you can whitelist a particular site. Maybe the software could even do it for you, by learning about the reputation of various sites for this particular activity and automatically assigning risk factors and so on.

Right now, it seems like the only way to catch art thieves is to have the coincidence of someone who's familiar with both your work and the thief's work point it out to you.

Artists know how to use tin eye already. But automating the process for batches would be useful. Now here's the question: How many people would pay for this service? Artists ain't exactly rich.

How does Tineye make money at the moment? I'm sure there's a business model somewhere that would work.

Here's how they make money:

https://services.tineye.com/MulticolorEngine#plans-and-prici...

Artists wouldn't have to pay upfront. They could sign up for free, register their art, then the service could participate in royalties on a contingent basis.

That's not art from a video game. Therefore, it's not an object of the project's critique and is not likely to be interpreted as Fair Use.

That is a piece of fan art about a game. The project's critique is of video games, not of fan art. Therefore, the work, imo, deserves no protection.

Furthermore, the researcher is guilty of intellectual dishonesty, or is simply ignorant, for portraying fan art as video game art.

....and this topic is wiped from HN's catalog.

Before the discussion derails Feminist Frequency is the name of the website who's owner infringed on the copyright: feministfrequency.com .

Reply on news.ycombinator.com