On Sun, 22 Jan 2006, Michael Snow wrote:
Justin Cormack wrote:
US law doesnt recognise copyright of sculptures in photos - only 2D art, as there is creativity in making the picture of the sculpture.
Wrong. The creativity involved in making a derivative work does not exempt it from the copyright in the original work. Sculptures are absolutely just as capable of having copyright as any other work of art.
There is a federal district court case holding that under particular circumstances, a sculpture's copyright was dedicated to the public domain under a theory of general publication. But otherwise, a photograph of a sculpture is subject to the copyright of the sculpture.
Interesting. What about pictures of people? - If I put makeup on my face and call it a work of art, and someone takes a picture of me in a public place, do my copyrights still apply? Or if I jog regularly and spend time shaping and trimming my body, does my unique physique retain it's copyrights in a similar photograph situation?
// Jei