[Commons-l] Photos of statues not considered derivatives in the US?

[Geoffrey Plourde]

IANAL, but I would say it's solid as it has been cited in Latimer v. Roaring Toyz, Inc., 2008 WL 697346 (M.D. Fl.)



________________________________
From: Howard Cheng <howard at howcheng.com>
To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <commons-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 4:42:29 PM
Subject: [Commons-l] Photos of statues not considered derivatives in the US?

According to http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.html,
Judge William H. Pauley III of the Southern District of New York ruled
in SHL Imaging, Inc. v. Artisan House, Inc., 117 F. Supp. 2d 301 (S.D.
N.Y. 2000) that photographs of statues/sculptures are not considered
derivative works, noting: "A photograph of Jeff Koons's 'Puppy'
sculpture in Manhattan's Rockefeller Center merely depicts that
sculpture; it does not recast, transform, or adapt Koons's sculptural
authorship. In short, the authorship of the photographic work is
entirely different and separate from the authorship of the sculpture."

Note that this is the same court that issued the Bridgeman v. Corel
ruling. If this hasn't been overturned at any point, and the blog post
linked above doesn't indicate that it has, then we should start
allowing photos of statues in the US, and perhaps anywhere even where
there is no FOP for statues (similar to what we did for PD-Art).

Thoughts?

-h

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l at lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20081120/e7bc0ceb/attachment.htm