Is a copy of a copy of an original?
The band " Elsinore "would use a picture painted by Brittany Pyle as their album cover. Rights holders of Roy Lichtenstein "Kiss V" but believes that Pyles image breaks with their copyright. It turns out that Pyle has merely used the same original source as Lichtenstein, a comic book here revealed on " Deconstructing Lichtenstein "and not Lichtenstein.
So Lichtenstein is good, while Pyle / Elsinore can not? Some claim that copyright is not so simple again:
On one side is difficult to conclude whether Lichtenstein has done more good for comics than Andy Warhol has soup (like a naughty puts it at Techdirt ). But if Lichtenstein popularization or processing of the image in the form of either change of context (art gallery) or cropping of the image is enough to claim his copyright, then the carpet under the copyright of images probably first pulled away.
On the other hand, there is yet no evidence that Lichtenstein copied another - besides that it is common knowledge that Lichtenstein was inspired by comics [ Wikipedia ]. The source of the cartoon is not revealed. So what if Lichtenstein came first and the material that Pyle has painted after, were made later? Then Pyles image a copy of a copy and thus also a copy of the original work.
Unless it is not inherited, because breach of copyright has not been done from an intentional action. Pyle has enough known to Lichtenstein's work, but the intension was not to copy Lichtenstein, but Lichtenstein original source?
Today I've seen " Copying is Theft groove "on Youtube, a video card that must stand by my comment about this tangled case.
I have incidentally story from Boing Boing .
