Picking up from
here, if you lay both EJ’s image and Rozy Fly’s image in Photoshop and calculate the differences between the gray layers, you get:
Now … Here’s the tricky bit.
Does EJ have a copyright? Yes, I think so. But it is a derivative copyright, for sure.
But derivative of what? Of the original base? Or of Small Brooke’s image?
Just running the diff between them, there’s enough similarities between EJ’s and Small Brooke’s image that if Small Brooke asked for EJ’s to be removed then it probably would have been.
Just as if Small Brooke asked to have RozyFly’s image deleted I would do so right now without hesitation.
The problem though is when comparing EJ’s to RozyFly’s. RozyFly’s is also derivative of EJ’s, but is EJ’s derivative copyright sufficient to make a copyright claim on others who use - in part - their edit to make another edit?
Generally speaking, I think they should. But this is a case-by-case thing.
When staff looked at this two weeks ago they determined that EJ’s claim was not strong enough to ask for other people’s works derivative of their work be deleted.
That said, should RozyFly have used THIS MUCH of EJ’s image to make their’s?
Heck no. I think that was a very bad idea and as should be obvious to everyone was a real dick move ((my full apologies to any Richards in the house).
But is it a “Delete that image right now” dick move?
Two weeks ago the answer was “No.”
So - here we are.
I personally believe that Small Brooke’s work is transformative enough that it stands alone as a separate instance of copyright.
And I believe that both EJ’s and RozyFly’s images are close enough to Small Brooke’s that they are … given that these are all bases of the same thing … derivative of Small Brooke’s.
But is RozyFly’s image derivative enough of EJ’s image that EJ can ask to have RozyFly’s image deleted?
Two weeks ago, staff said “No.”
This is the problem with “Base Used” - everyone who uses the base is derivative of the base. And far too often they end up derivative of each other.
Give us something where an artist drew something unique and original, and someone traced it - THAT is what we’re set up to handle.
This stuff where everything is based on a base? Ouch.
Add to this we have a third party speaking on behalf of artists where the artist hasn’t indicated that person has a right to do so, and given that our Takedown stuff starts with the stipulation that ONLY THE ARTIST can ask for a takedown or make a copyright claim on someone else’s work, and here we are.
So - I think that’s how we ended up where we are.
Is this what should have happened? I don’t know.
But, for Next Steps:
-
If Small Brooke wants RozyFly’s image deleted I’ll be happy to talk to staff to see if that can happen, because I really believe Small Brooke has a valid claim.
-
And if EJ wants to appeal the decision made 2 weeks ago for the original takedown request, all they have to do is ask on Support on our Discord channel and hopefully there will be enough staff around to help discuss it some more.
I think this is how we got here, and where we are at - Am I missing anything?
