this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2024
605 points (98.1% liked)

News

23311 readers
3553 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The company behind Trump Watches prominently features an iconic image of the presidential candidate on its timepieces. There’s one big problem: It’s not allowed to.

According to the Associated Press, though, TheBestWatchesonEarth LLC advertised a product it can’t deliver, as that image is owned by the 178-year-old news agency. This week, the AP told WIRED it is pursuing a cease and desist against the LLC, which is registered in Sheridan, Wyoming. (The company did not reply to a request for comment about the cease and desist letter.)

Evan Vucci, the AP’s Pulitzer Prize–winning chief photographer, took that photograph, and while he told WIRED he does not own the rights to that image, the AP confirmed earlier this month in an email to WIRED that it is filing the written notice. “AP is proud of Evan Vucci’s photo and recognizes its impact,” wrote AP spokesperson Nicole Meir. “We reserve our rights to this powerful image, as we do with all AP journalism, and continue to license it for editorial use only.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] roguetrick@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

That's not transformative by a long shot. It adds no new meaning and is for commercial purposes which has a higher bar in the first place.

[–] Randomgal@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Isn't this the same as that Obama red and blue pic?

[–] roguetrick@lemmy.world 3 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

Which was settled out of court with a sharing of rights to the AP. And that image was more transformative than this. Cropping the subject of a photograph and engraving it on the back of a watch just conveys the subject matter of the photograph. It's a loser in court.

[–] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml -3 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

being an impression or an engraving of photograph is pretty transformative. This claim is a loser in court.

[–] roguetrick@lemmy.world 2 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

Changing medium is not transformative if you're explicitly copying the subject matter of the original.

Edit: one thing that is funny is that there's a note in the picture of the article that they can't use a photo of the back of the watch for some watch review site because they don't have the rights from the AP. In that case, however, they're wrong because a picture of the back of the watch to make a point that the watch is similar to the original photograph is, hilariously, transformative. It, in conjunction with the article, has a completely different meaning than the original image and is fair use. If you used the image just to talk about the event or about Trump though, that would not be fair use because you're just using the image's composition in its entirety.

[–] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml -2 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (2 children)

I'm gonna have to agree to disagree with you on that. There are far too many example of just that in everyday life.

[–] nemith@programming.dev 1 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

Unless you are a judge on the case your disagreement doesn't matter.

And the only examples that matter is case law.

[–] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

Well I agree with you on that but unless you have verifiable credentials as an authority on the subject then your judgement and seeming disagreement on the subject also doesn't matter. To go around cavalierly making unverfiable claims (like I'm also responding to) about the judgements over intellectual property law does nothing good for anyone, but leaves many susceptible (including yourself) to Dunning–Kruger and confirmation bias.

[–] roguetrick@lemmy.world 0 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

So if I produce a movie based on a book without a license, I would be ok in your mind right?

[–] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

This would be like producing an engraving based on a altered photograph, and as I said earlier, it would be worth consulting with an IP attorney.

[–] roguetrick@lemmy.world 1 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

So are you saying yes or no that changing the medium from a book to a movie, which completely alters how the work is consumed, is fair use transformative or not? Because it would be very informative to how far off the copyright test that the supreme court has handed down you are.

See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Koons for changes in media (photograph to sculpture) with alterations and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Warhol_Foundation_for_the_Visual_Arts,_Inc._v._Goldsmith for a more recent case where an upper body back and white photograph was cropped to only included a head, transformed to silk screen, and colored by hand if you want a clear idea here as to whether minor cropping and figure redrawing for engraving in a different medium is considered transformative(it is not).