Now Outright Copyright Infringement?

[Eli's Foe]

I wonder if any of you have come across this picture comparison? I must confess that I dont like the site, either in concept or much of the content, so I apologise in advance if you find it somewhat offensive, nevertheless, the comparison of the woman in the water featured in the Live Forever book and in Stern magazine is compelling.

http://www.fortunecity.co.uk/jodrellbank/hyperdrive/479/

What would be interesting would be to identify the exact issue of Stern magazine and the date of issue. The context is that the Demons were sexually abusing beautiful women on the earth. If you were that woman, would you want to be pictured in that context without your permission?


EF
(Sorry, I posted in the wrong topic section, but it doesn't appear to be possible to amend it)

[watchman]

Is there no end to these XJW web sites? Amazing.

The deal is, the woman pictured on the front of Stern magazine in all likelihood does not own the copyright of her picture. I would guess Stern holds the copyright and they can do with it whatever they want. It may be that the WT paid Stern a licensing fee to use the photo. Or it is possible that Stern gave the WT permission to use it without a licensing fee. Perhaps there is a JW on the board at Stern, who knows? On the other hand, it is possible that an artist at Bethel stole the photo and the GB were unaware of it. I doubt that scenario though. For one thing, the Live Forever book has been widely published and it seems unlikely that this matter could have gone unnoticed by Stern. Surely if it is a case of outright theivery the copyright holders would have taken legal action by now.

[Berean]

Yes, the site is bad, but like you said, Eli's Foe, I doubt that woman would be very happy about being in that context. Copyright infringement or not, it would seem unethical to me, unless they approached the woman in question and asked her if she agreed to be in that painting.

[watchman]

Yes, the site is bad, but like you said, Eli's Foe, I doubt that woman would be very happy about being in that context. Copyright infringement or not, it would seem unethical to me, unless they approached the woman in question and asked her if she agreed to be in that painting.[/b]

Why should she object to being the focus of voyeuristic demons leering at her from heaven? :icon_neutral:

Watchman

[Berean]

Why should she object to being the focus of voyeuristic demons leering at her from heaven? :icon_neutral:

Watchman
[/b]
Haha, I guess you have a point. :lol:

[juffowup]

This is just sheer ignorance of the art world. Artists use commercial work for references all the time. Even if the original picture is copyrighted, the artist by drawing or painting it is making an original work that he could then copyright himself. Such a slavish copy as this one would probably draw a certain amount of scorn in a professional context, but then again, I was let down when I saw the reference work of Alex Ross, and he is a very highly regarded illustrator for graphic novels. (comic books, as they are also known. :rolleyes: )

I don't know that I understand the ethical implications Watchman touches on, but legally this is not a problem, and happens all the time.