[Commons-l] Models, toys, and other objects can be copyrighted

• Previous message: [Commons-l] Models, toys, and other objects can be copyrighted
• Next message: [Commons-l] Models, toys, and other objects can be copyrighted
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On 5/21/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> Is there case law suggesting that photographs of costumes or action
> figures are copyright infringement?

That's a valid question. One could argue that photographing a doll
removes the expression from commercial relevance to the copyright
holder. If that is true, then I would suspect photos of dolls (not 3D
models) work particularly well for cartoon characters, while artist's
impressions are better for human actors. Is there such a thing as
"clearly derivative, but not infringing"?

The situation is complicated by our assertion that the image is free
content, allowing you to use it for any purpose whatsoever. Of course
it's always possible to effectively turn a free content picture into a
copyright infringement through modification. I really don't have a
clue where to draw the line at the moment.

We live in a copyrighted world. It gets quite nauseating sometimes.

Erik

• Previous message: [Commons-l] Models, toys, and other objects can be copyrighted
• Next message: [Commons-l] Models, toys, and other objects can be copyrighted
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]