2007/11/7, Alex Nordstrom lx@se.linux.org:
Wednesday, 7 November 2007, Andre Engels wrote:
However, I think that we should cut ourselves *some* slack in the depiction of copyrighted works. Very little can be photographed otherwise - a car or a piece of technical apparatus is designed, and thus copyrighted,
No; the design of a utilitarian object is subject to a higher threshold of originality and is therefore usually not copyrightable. The design of cars are instead protected by design patents. Things like closeups of hood ornaments or badges, however, are problematic.
I don't see where you get the rule that there is a 'higher threshold of originality' in these cases. Perhaps in some countries that is true, but I am quite sure it's not in my native Netherlands. The judge there is to decide whether the work has an 'own, original character'. This is not different for industrial design, and indeed industrial design, clothing and furniture are often judged to be copyrighted works.
and even photographing a person would be problematic, as you'll have to reckon with their clothing designer.
Again, most aspects of clothing design will be dictated by its utilitarian properties. Of course, the print on a t-shirt may be copyrightable, but if the objective is to depict the person, such inclusions are usually secondary and acceptable under the de minimis rule.
Again, I disagree with the first part of your statement. Judges have judged that combinations of a certain placement of bags, a type of stitching used etcetera are enough to make a work copyrightable. A de nihilis claim would indeed work in this case, but not in the previous one. Still, in these cases people get sued for making replicas or for objects that are too similar, not for pictures and other similar depictions of them.