AP Copyright Lawsuit Takes A Funny Turn

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
The guy that is being sued by the Associated Press for using a copyrighted picture of Obama for art has responded to the lawsuit in an interesting way. The artists claims that he can make art from Associated Press pictures without consent because the Associated Press takes pictures of art without consent. Wait…what!?!?

We filed our answer to The AP's counterclaims yesterday, and it's attached below. The interesting part is at the end, where we illustrate the double standard the AP seems to employ when it comes to using copyrighted works.
Click to expand...
 
A big hole in his argument: if someone had a exclusive claim to pictures of a work of art, they are free to sue AP if AP publishes it.
 
He has a point. How can AP claim copyright of a picture of a piece of art?
Do they own the original art?
Is it the same as making a print of the art?

Glad I am not the judge on that case.
 
unless he was selling said 'art', wouldn't it fall under fair use?

Don't have time to read through that PDF at the moment, but I'd be interested to read through the details
 
edit: just read the defenses section of the PDF and it's pretty ridiculous, from both sides. What a waste of court resources.
 
jandar said:
He has a point. How can AP claim copyright of a picture of a piece of art?
Click to expand...
I think the problem is that AP owns the particular photograph that was used without permission. Seriously, how hard would it have been to have a second photo taken separately by the defendant? $20? $50? Nothing if it were released under a CC license? Talk about laziness.

Even with that, it's pretty much a waste of time.
 
Copyright means NOTHING if you don't defend it. It can be/is IP if you do defend it. So his argument actually props up AP's case IMO.
 
I think its a childish argument personally

"Well if they can do it, I can do it to"

the AP buys the photo's they or have photographers that take the photos themselves.
 
One thing of note he did not manipulate a picture he used a picture to make the art out by hand.- that is a big difference. It is hard to make a proper judgment if you dont know the facts.
 
It would fall under the "Parody" clause of Fair Use. End of story.

Whether he claims parody or not, if it would fall under it if claimed, then as a matter of LAW the judge must find for the artist.

Artist will win on summary judgment. :cool:

If anyone should be suing, it's Obama.... it was his image exploited commercially by the AP et al.

Oh yeah, I forgot, THAT is covered under FAIR USE as Obama is a public figure.... oops. So AP, live by the fair use, die by the fair use..... biatch. :eek::rolleyes::p
 
The guy should just freaking say he traced the image or created an image based on a picture, not that he modified or altered it. That would avoid this entire waste of time.

Also, Stephen Colbert is on this guy's side, as well as Stephen's lawyer brother. I couldn't find the clip of it online though.
 
jandar said:
He has a point. How can AP claim copyright of a picture of a piece of art?
Do they own the original art?
Is it the same as making a print of the art?

Glad I am not the judge on that case.
Click to expand...

Art is copyrightable...not sure what you are even asking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top