Steve Vertigum wrote:
LOL. How can it be proved that photograph x came from
source n? If its the exact same size, and the color
histogram matches etc... it might be legally sound.
But simply changing a size doesnt wipe the tracks
completely, and the obvious issue is do we actually
need to *cite a source for all our material -- to
prove that it didnt come from source n, by having
proof that it did come from source p... Is there any
clarity, dear copyright gurus, on this particular
distinction? Isnt this a case where altering images
(even a little) could be standard protocol to cover
this particular track?
--- daniwo59(a)aol.com wrote:
>It's not the painting that is copyrighted but the
>photgraph of the painting.
>Unless the book is from before 1923, I would not
>suggest it.
>
I would be inclined to favour the position that a point and click
reproduction of a famous out of original copyright painting is not
copyrightable because it does not add anything original to the painting.
What's the case law on this sort of thing?
Ec