The painting on the left and the photo is on the right. Full story here. I ams honestly stunned that a judge could not see that the painter clearly violated the copyright of the photographer’s work. This isn’t just a case of “there are some similarities”. This is a blatant “copy”.
1 Like
I’m glad to see the photographer is appealing the decision. I hope she gets a better lawyer next time.
I have seen copyright cases where a photographer has photographed artwork (think like taking a photo of the Mona Lisa) and tried to copyright it but can’t. But where this is a photo of a real person, taken with time and effort and obvious talent, it’s been fixed in a media (whether digital or real film) yah the photographer owns it. The painter is a schmuck and the award should be stripped.
There’s using photos for reference and then there is blatant ripping off.
For educational and commentary purposes, here is the painting flipped and placed over the photograph. The painting layer has the Difference blending mode applied. The painting seems to be spot on the photograph.
I don’t know what copyright protection requires in Luxumbourg or the EU, but if this isn’t blatant plagiarism, I don’t know what is. Other than adding the red earring, it’s a flat-out copy and probably traced using a projector.
Clearly it’s a twin. Can copyright one but not the other. Jeesh you guys know nuthin
1 Like
Model release? No? Hmmmm…
You know, this does set the stage for AI theft of art to make the stuff it makes. This decision is all wrong.
I agree with Just-B—it is most definitely blatant plagiarism! Shame on the artist who would claim it for his own.
This topic was automatically closed 365 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.