On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 6:29 AM, J JIH jus168jih@gmail.com wrote:
Neither am I your lawyer, but your points are very interesting and potentially encouraging. Once the Wikimedia Foundation is able to accept your points, recent pictures of very old coins may also become acceptable on Commons, similar to mere copies of very old 2-dimensional works.
Jusjih
Lupo points out a flaw in the argument on my talk page: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Howcheng&diff=1...
"Patry argues a fine point whether photos of 3D objects are derivative works. However, please note that even if such photos are not derivatives, they are still *copies* of the 3D object. 17 USC 101http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Code/Title_17/Chapter_1/Section_101defines copies as "material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device." 17 USC 106(1)http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Code/Title_17/Chapter_1/Sections_105_and_106gives the copyright owner of the 3D object the exclusive right to "to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords". Hence the photographer would still need to get the consent of the copyright owner of the 3D object to even make a photo. Patry acknowledges this himself, read the comments on the blog article you linked, in particular this commenthttp://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.html?showComment=1202223060000#c8671324199605658790 < http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.ht...: "yes I think a picture of a copyrighted object is a reproduction of that object". Also this commenthttp://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/03/photographs-are-not-derivative-works.html?showComment=1206038640000#c6248389526681202947 < http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/03/photographs-are-not-derivative-work... from a follow-up blog post on this issue: "even though a photograph isn't a derivative work of the object photographed doesn't mean there might not be violation of the reproduction right. If I take a photo of a copyrighted work of art and sell copies, I am violating the reproduction art even though my photo is not a derivative work of the art work." So, it doesn't matter for us: for photos of copyrighted artwork, we need the consent of the rights holder of the artwork shown in the photo (plus that of the photographer, if he isn't identical to the uploader)"
But hopefully Mike can weigh in on this too.
-h