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.
--Michael Snow
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.
Okay, that's good to know. But how do I determine the copyright of a sculpture? This is the artist in question:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einar_J%C3%B3nsson
Regards, Haukur
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
On 1/23/06, Jei jei@cc.hut.fi wrote:
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?
As with most things legal, the answer is probably 'it depends'. Both of those could probably win in court with a good enough lawyer, a poor enough opposing lawyer, and a credulous jury.
-Matt
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Matt Brown
On 1/23/06, Jei jei@cc.hut.fi wrote:
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?
As with most things legal, the answer is probably 'it depends'. Both of those could probably win in court with a good enough lawyer, a poor enough opposing lawyer, and a credulous jury.
Which leads me to ponder about how vulnerable WP is to similar frivolononsense. We do the best we can and someone sues us because their face is in the "body art" article or something.
Peter Mackay wrote:
Which leads me to ponder about how vulnerable WP is to similar frivolononsense. We do the best we can and someone sues us because their face is in the "body art" article or something.
My ideal future is that WP has such a high reputation among jurists that the judge dismisses the case and jails the plaintiff's lawyer for having the temerity to cast aspersions on the judge's favorite online reference.
We could get to that state sooner by just adding hagiographic biographies of all the judges that might hear our case - we can see from de:'s case what could happen if we don't.
:-) :-)
Stan
On 1/23/06, Jei jei@cc.hut.fi wrote:
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?
Sounds like a reasonable argument to me. It would depend, of course, on whether or not the jury agreed with you that the makeup was a work of art. In the case of applying lipstick it probably wouldn't be - getting a full body tatoo on the other hand...
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
I doubt it. You're not really the author of your body's unique physique - it's much more accidental. I'm not really sure how to reconcile that argument with copyright on some "modern art", though. Who knows, maybe you could convince a judge that you do have a copyright on your body's unique physique. I'd be willing to listen to any precedents you can come up with.
Don't forget though, that in addition to copyright laws, pictures of people are subject to privacy and publicity laws as well.
Anthony
Jei wrote:
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?
It depends on the originality of the makeup, and how distinctive it is. Could parents be considered as having copyrights in their children? :-)
Ec