RSS
Is A Photograph A Derivative Work Of The Object In The Photo?
from the you-would-hope-not dept
There's an interesting discussion going on over at William Patry's blog, questioning whether or not a photograph should be considered a "derivative work" of the object or objects in the photo. The courts appear to be somewhat split on this. The importance of this concerns whether or not the photograph itself can be covered by copyright -- and also whether or not the photograph can be considered infringement itself. If the photo is considered an unauthorized derivative work, then it's entirely possible that whoever holds the copyright on the object in the photo could claim that the photo itself is infringing. Remember, in the past there's been some concern about the legality of photographing copyrighted sculptures. A derivative work is supposed to be for something that "recast, transformed, or adapted" the original work, and is normally used for something like a translation of copyrighted material. However, does a photograph really recast, transform or adapt the object? Or is it an entirely separate work?
I’m looking for research...
Apps, Platforms, Consumer Use
The Growing App Market
I have an idea...
App Developer Conversations: Successful Fundraising Techniques
From Noodles And Hot Sauce To Funding In 9 Weeks, With Oomf Founder Mikael Cho
I have a business...
To Understand The Data Move It Closer
How To Successfully Get Your App Into China
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
This madness must stop
I'm reminded of the time I went to take a photo with my camera of a giant painting in an art museum. One of the docents came over to tell me that was not permitted. I was flabbergasted. Did she really think a grainy VGA image was a reasonable substitute for a massive painting?
If this type of "derivative work" claim moves forward, it will utterly destroy any type of urban photography, as nearly everything can have some copyright claim made upon it. For example, you couldn't have any signage or decoration or architecture in your photo that is possibly covered by copyright. That means no logos of any kind. What on earth would we do, then?
Just ridiculous.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Thumbnail?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
> or adapt the object?
It transforms the object from 3D to 2D. That's enough already.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
settled a long time ago in opposite direction
btw you can't photo art in museums because flash photography degrades the art. too many asshats have abused the "no flash" rule, so now it is usually "no cameras"
there is also a worry for some paintings that brush strokes could be copied and works counterfeited.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
What the first 3 said.
2) A picture of a sculpture is like a degraded quality copy because
3) a picture (currently) transforms the 3D sculpture into a 2D image.
Of course for 3, what if it's a painting? Oh well that's right, the camera resolution is lower than reality (currently).
I hate copyright law now. People do dumb shit like complain that someone took a picture of their sculpture and wanted to show it to people. Nothing like creating art for the sake of not showing it to anybody.
Why isn't it in this guy's basement or destroyed again?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Hold on here
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Can of Worms
Think of all the different things you take pictures of that are covered by some form of copyright.
Cars, Paintings, Buildings, Products, Sculptures, Books.
Where do you draw the line?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Common
Dunno how legal it is, but they seem to think it is.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: settled a long time ago in opposite direction
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Imagine this world...
All sight, all sound,all thought; controlled, protected.
So that we may only see, hear, and think what others want us to.
So that learning its self stops...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
You wouldn't steal a purse, would you?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
This is the same item related to the Egyptian claim of rights over use of imagery of the pyramids. Next thing "they" will be making us pay for natural landscapes...I have hundreds of pictures of the Grand Tetons. Do I have to send a check to .... Jackson Hole, Jackson County, USFS, Mother Nature? I tell ya... we are so lost.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
It is unlikely (but possible) that family or vacation photos would cause much in the way of infringements in the mind of even those writing the copyright regs.
Copyright law is already confusing to most.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
right???
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
A bit torn
But some photographers are REALLY GOOD and can do some amazing things with photos; it's real ART. Now, I don't know if that's necessarily a derivative work (I would probably argue it's a completely new work in itself, the result of said Photographer's skill and talent), but I don't think it's unreasonable to say that those (high-quality) photos should be any less protected than a painting or a sculpture.
I'm not exactly sure what i'm getting at here.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
A Solution
The solution, then, would be to mandate that anyone who pursues such ludicrous infringement suits ought to fully protect their copyrighted material by having no one view or refer to it at all in any form, live or "Memorex".
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
That being said, there are tribes in Africa that will kill you if you take a picture of them (as they believe that the camera steals their soul) so maybe working this out in a courtroom is a better option.
That being said, the whole topic is based on a blog discussion. Doesn't mean that anything will ever come of it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
This could apply to music, art, sculpture, etc..
At least it would clear up some issues and be a step in the right direction.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"I know more than you"
than
"but I'm not gonna tell you poo-poo heads"
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This madness must stop
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
As long as it's considered an art form
Also, any attempt to control photography in this way would restrict the first ammendment.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
reply
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: settled a long time ago in opposite direct
And in some cases there really is a "no photos because of the gift shop" policy. You can't take photos in the Sistine Chapel because Fujifilm has the photography contract for the fancy book in the Vatican Gift Shop. Camera flash is definitely not the issue, as the flash diffuses to the point of non-effectiveness (at least for people without high powered flash units) by the time it reaches the ceiling 30-ish ft above you.
But in other cases, camera flash does harm some paintings. It's a complex "equation" based on what the painting is on, the paints used, age, type of flash, and flash strength. It's just that most curators won't "do the math" and figure out which paintings are at risk, and assume all are at risk.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This madness must stop
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Photocopy
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Obviously. Copyright protection in the US is not limited to commercial use.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Try and stop me asshats.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment