On 1/24/07, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 05:45:51PM -0500, Anthony wrote:
To use my example, above, my taking a photograph of an artist posing next to his painting does *not*, to me, seem to meet the description there, quoted from the statute, of a derivative work, as it's not *based* on the original painting: he could have been standing next to *anything*.
Whether or not it's a derivative work is largely irrelevant, because a photograph of a painting definitely *is* a copy.
Well, that's largely a strawman, since 3 lines earlier I made it clear that I was *not* discussing merely "a photograph of a painting" in the Bridgeman sense.
It doesn't matter if it's merely "a photograph of a painting" or if it's "a photograph of a painting and some other stuff". It's still a copy. Adding more stuff to the photo doesn't change that.
Anthony