Today’s submission touches upon two interesting and inter-connected issues of law.
First, when an artist sets out to technnically reproduce a naturally-occurring phenomenon, such as a flower, an animal, or, as in this case, a bodily organ, the copyright protection for that depiction will be thin. The reasoning behind this is that there are only so many ways to realistically depict something like a skull or heart as it appears in nature, and if two artists set out to capture this appearance, they may do so in a substantially similar way.
Second, the submitter of the material for this post seems to take umbrage not at the theft of another artist’s work, but of the minimal creativity involved in ‘google-sourcing’ an image and then slightly tweaking it. As we have previously discussed, the creator of a derivative work obtains protection only for what she adds to the found work. What was added in the below case, and is it enough to qualify for copyright protection?
This is my 1st post here. It is what it is. I was just looking around, clicking links that go on endlessly, when I found a link off Threadless for Society 6. After browsing their site, I clicked another link to Design Milk. Here I found a “seemingly nice and sweet” art print titled “In My Heart” by Wesley Bird. Just because I’ve been looking at so many rips on the site, I googled human hearts and found the original.
Ripped image :
All he did was reflect it and tone it back. Anybody’s thoughts?