Hacker News Reader

Comment by rcfox | Hacker News Reader

That's a self-defeating statement. By copying it, you've acknowledged its value.

"That's a self-defeating statement. By copying it, you've acknowledged its value."

I've just copied your comment, but I nevertheless think that it is of low value (as evidence against your hypothesis, I present the case of myself copying your low value comment...).

Proof by recursion!

One could argue that the very fact that you saw fit to copy my statement to present an "impressive" rebuttal proves that my statement was valuable artistically.

I don't believe that the materials used in art need have artistic value of their own.

This raised a (silly) question in my head: Does a public comment on the Internet, like the one he made, fall under his copyright thus allowing him to deny you the right to copy it?

Technically yes, I believe so. I suspect it would be rather hard to win that case however.

Technically yes, but your response is fair use because the purpose and character of your response was literally "fair and reasonable criticism" and did not "supersede the use of the original work".

Exact same reason parody is cool.

Why technically? Simply yes, unless the website terms and conditions provides otherwise.

However his quoting of it would probably fall under fair use, even though he copied all of it.

I only said technically because the case for fair use would be so strong that in practice I doubt I could actually be sued successfully.

Thats a disingenuous reply. "Artistic value" is not the same as "any value". I don't see any "artistic value" in a pile of coal, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have utilitarian value.

Someone saw "artistic value" in a bunch of soup cans[0], so I'm not sure that the phrase, "artistic value" has an actual meaning.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell%27s_Soup_Cans

That's an interesting case to raise in a copyright context. How would have Warhol been treated in today's trademark and copyright law environment? It seems there wasn't a problem in 1964.

[1] http://www.lettersofnote.com/2010/07/i-hear-you-like-tomato-...

We ran an Campbells/Warhol exhibit at my school and all the information that was provided to us was that they had worked well together as he had no "negative impact" for Campbells. I would assume the same would be true today.

Warhol’s view is encapsulated in the quote ". . . a group of painters have come to the common conclusion that the most banal and even vulgar trappings of modern civilization can, when transposed to canvas, become Art." - A quote from your link

I agree that "artistic value" may be a hard defense in court, but the paintings are not about soup. They are about us. The things that we create and our ideas on culture and society.

See Duchamp: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Duchamp]

"The creative act is not performed by the artist alone; the spectator brings the work in contact with the external world by deciphering and interpreting its inner qualifications and thus adds his contribution to the creative act." - Marcel Duchamp

Not really: just because I want a copy of something for whatever reason does not mean it has any artistic or scientific value. And porn would be "useful" even with artistic or scientific merit ;)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com