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.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth jra(a)baylink.com
Designer Baylink RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates The Things I Think '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA
http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274