On Jul 26, 2012, at 5:51 PM, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
Copyrights wouldn't apply because you own the
copyrights in the pictures you
take.
Maybe. You own the copyright fully if you are the sole contributor of
the creative input which went into the picture. If someone else also
contributed, then you might own the copyright in the picture as a
derivative work (extending only to your contributions), <snip>
I hope you don' t my picking out this piece from your email and ignoring the rest.
Simply photographing a copyrighted work does NOT create a photograph that is a derivative
works. For a photo to be a derivative work you have to really go beyond timing, lighting,
point and click.
This claim of photographs as derivative works came up just a few weeks ago in the
trademark discussion. I never directly addressed this issue during that discussion While
I felt certain at the time, there was some error in this claim. I could not recall the
reasoning behind the counter-point. I just came across the in-depth discussion. If
anyone is interested the links follow, and don't forget to read the comments. The
comments are actually were is explained in lay terms instead judicial terms.
http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.h…
http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.h…
Birgitte SB