Quote:
Originally Posted by rkomar
My position is that HC did not do anything illegal (because I wouldn't judge the newer painting to be a copy of the original). In which case, if the original artist had demanded, say $1,000,000, then I wouldn't say that HC acted sleazily at all.
I'm not pro-industry, anti-artist here. I'm definitely worried that artists will paint themselves into a corner if they push for laws that make such 'copying' illegal. There have been countless works of art created in the past, and I'd say that any new work of art 'copies' some past piece on a loose enough definition of copying (e.g. has same four elements in roughly same positions). Art will fall into the same quagmire that software development already has because of patentable ideas, and it will be the same 'intellectual property' estate owners gouging the tenants in both cases.
|
I think that HC definitely did something wrong here. I can't say for sure if it's illegal since I'm not a lawyer but...
From what I've read of copyright, this is clearly a case of HC wanting either the original artwork or a derivative. Copyright protects derivatives (otherwise authors like JK Rowling couldn't go after fanfic) and I believe that HC knows they have no case. They don't want any additional reader fall out - they're pulling the covers.