On test server
Mr Nobody shopping
Coffee 24/50
37SH Fire
41SH A picture taken on holiday
Coffee 25/50
Coffee 26/50
Coffee 27/50
Fly no more
Coffee 28/50
Coffee 29/50
Coffee 30/50
Coffee 31/50
Italian ice-cream since 1925
Apricot flavor =P
Coffee 32/50
Screenshot 2020-08-10 14.37.11
Coffee 23/50
09SH A piece of cake
07SH Something pink
DIY wrist strap
14SH A gadget
44SH A petal
Home sweet home!
17SH A mannequin
18SH Litter
Coffee 22/50
26SH A traffic sign
43SH A rock
Masked camera
33SH Symmetry
35SH Coloured glass
Use protection! =D
Budget Leica
05SH Silhouette
What I wanted to shoot...
DUST!??? But no worries =)
01SH Accidental Letters
Coffee 21/50
See also...
Authorizations, license
-
Visible by: Everyone -
Attribution + non Commercial
- Photo replaced on 09 Jun 2020
-
285 visits
Derivative work?
Here's an interesting problem for (all of) you to think about.
Previously I have tried to inform people on copyright issues. According to Wikimedia Commons, for example board games are one example on subject that people should avoid photographing.
But then there is a concept of derivative works to consider. So, the question is:
What makes something as a derivative work (enough)?
For example on case of such image as above, is the subject altered enough to become as a derivative work? Original subject is a jigsaw puzzle by Ravensburg and subject of illustration by Aimee Stewart. Well, removing colors is very likely not enough. But if the pieces of puzzle are spread out like seen above, and part of the puzzle is out of focus, would it be then enough? And the same case concerning for example any copyright protected image. So, was Andy Warhol an ingenious artist or a biggest con artist of all time?
And ever since gaming and playing have become popular discussion topic online, board game fans have had to ask the same questions.
Previously I have tried to inform people on copyright issues. According to Wikimedia Commons, for example board games are one example on subject that people should avoid photographing.
But then there is a concept of derivative works to consider. So, the question is:
What makes something as a derivative work (enough)?
For example on case of such image as above, is the subject altered enough to become as a derivative work? Original subject is a jigsaw puzzle by Ravensburg and subject of illustration by Aimee Stewart. Well, removing colors is very likely not enough. But if the pieces of puzzle are spread out like seen above, and part of the puzzle is out of focus, would it be then enough? And the same case concerning for example any copyright protected image. So, was Andy Warhol an ingenious artist or a biggest con artist of all time?
And ever since gaming and playing have become popular discussion topic online, board game fans have had to ask the same questions.
Edna Edenkoben, Fred Fouarge, Erika Akire, cammino and 10 other people have particularly liked this photo
- Keyboard shortcuts:
Jump to top
RSS feed- Latest comments - Subscribe to the comment feeds of this photo
- ipernity © 2007-2025
- Help & Contact
|
Club news
|
About ipernity
|
History |
ipernity Club & Prices |
Guide of good conduct
Donate | Group guidelines | Privacy policy | Terms of use | Statutes | In memoria -
Facebook
Twitter
do you know the meaning of con
in french
lol !
I feel very curious about these ideas of coping with copying
reproducing vs creating
not only for "the Magritte story" ;-)
like collages for instance. Exm www.instagram.com/p/B-RjaPfntt4/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
When I was starting amateur photography, I especially admired nature photographers like Finnish Hannu Hautala. I was even dreaming to become like him. And now the dream has returned...
No vittu joo! =D
What comes to collages, I suppose they are usually called in English and Freanch as "photomontages".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photomontage
fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photomontage
The interesting question then again is that when the photo montage made out of someone else's photos becomes a separate independent work(?) Although, one can of course use only one's own material to create a photo montage.
Rauschenberg? Well, he started licensing images after a few lawsuits.
In general I think pop art failed to live up to its potential -- as Bradford Collins has noted, the pop artists were the first artists to realize that religious and political iconography had been replaced in the modern world by the iconography of advertising. Unfortunately, they didn't get anywhere as far with that idea as non-artists had earlier -- for example, Marshall McLuhan in The Mechanical Bride.
Maybe their reputation as con artists comes from that failure. I don't know which reputation would be better to have.
Sign-in to write a comment.