On 1/24/07, Jay R. Ashworth <jra(a)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