Hello, 2011/6/29 Noopur <noopur.raval(a)gmail.com>om>: More complete description, date, etc. Thanks for your help, Yann

Noopur, please clarify about the difference between a camera photograph and a scanned photograph. I am not clear how a photograph automatically gains the status of a work of art, unless this is a legal definition and is not meant to be analysed from an 'artistic' point of view. On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Yann Forget &lt;yannfo(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- Vickram Fool On The Hill <http://communicall.wordpress.com>

Hello, 2011/6/29 Noopur &lt;noopur.raval(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: Here is an example with complete information: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vishnu_holding_lotus_flowers,_Nation… Regards, Yann

On 29 June 2011 15:00, Ashwin Baindur &lt;ashwin.baindur(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Because he took them? Thank you. Best, Gautam ________ http://social.prathambooks.org/

On 29 June 2011 15:15, Ashwin Baindur &lt;ashwin.baindur(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Very much! A picture of the Mona Lisa is copyrightable. Even if the painting of the Mona Lisa is out of copyright.

On Wednesday 29 June 2011 03:21 PM, Prashanth NS wrote: Not really. "Copyrightable" is more or less synonymous with copyrighted, since anything that is copyrightable is automatically (without any form of registration) granted copyrighted in all countries that recognize copyright (thanks to the Berne Convention and the TRIPS Agreement). You don't need to do anything to assert copyright. On the other hand, you need to do a positive act to relinquish copyright. This reversal of copyright (presumed to be under copyright, rather than presumed to be under public domain) is one of the greatest problems with the current global copyright regime. - Pranesh -- Pranesh Prakash Programme Manager Centre for Internet and Society W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283

On Wednesday 29 June 2011 03:16 PM, Gautam John wrote: I normally would hold that this is so, and have done so for years. However, given the recent interpretations by the Delhi High Court of the Supreme Court decision in EBC v. Modak, I'm not so sure any more. I think it is now arguable that a plain photograph that is meant to merely be a representation of the underlying painting is not "original", lacking "skill and judgment" (or "modicum of creativity", based on which test you believe EBC v. Modak lays down as the test for 'originality').[1] I doubt any court would grant a scanner copyright over unedited scans. Regards, Pranesh [1]: While it is not arguable whether EBC v. Modak (INSC) lays down exercise of "skill and judgment" as the test for originality or "modicum of creativity", it is very clear that it squarely rejects the older "sweat of the brow" test. -- Pranesh Prakash Programme Manager Centre for Internet and Society W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283

It's an interesting point. A photograph of a piece of art or heritage cannot logically* claim copyright, but what about a picture of a friend standing in front of said piece of art/heritage? *but then again, logic and copyright often do not occupy the same space and time On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Ashwin Baindur &lt;ashwin.baindur(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote;wrote: -- Vickram Fool On The Hill <http://communicall.wordpress.com>

On Wednesday 29 June 2011 03:20 PM, Vickram Crishna wrote: That is, undoubtedly, copyrightable (and hence, copyrighted as per our law). -- Pranesh Prakash Programme Manager Centre for Internet and Society W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283