On 28/09/11 13:44, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Nikola
The photograph does not constitute an origin or
Sure it does. Is there any such thing as an "original photograph"?
Yes there is, and this isn't it.
is not the first instance.
The original photograph is the first instance of the photograph. This
Copyright does not protect physical objects. The image that is fixed on
the first instance of the physical photograph is not the first instance
of the image.
is not independent or creative.
Someone most likely selected the F-stop, the shutter speed, and the
lighting. I doubt they just pointed the camera on auto and used the
The fact that you can devise a creative method to create an image does
not mean that the image itself is creative. As an extreme example, I can
devise an extremely creative false backstory for me in order to gain
access to a document, then photocopy it. The fact that I was creative
while devising my story does not give me copyright to a photocopy.
built in flash. Someone most likely selected how to
convert the raw
image into a jpeg or png or whatever they're using. They may have
How the hell is that creative?
even done some significant post-processing. Someone
Post-processing could be creative, but the original photographs still
selected which camera to use, how many separate
photographs to tile
This must be the worst pro-copyright argument of all times. So I have
two copiers in my company, and since I selected one of them the
photocopies I made are *original* and copyrighted by me? They are not.
This choice is limited by technical possibilities of the devices and not
by someone's creative decision.