2007/11/7, Alex Nordstrom <lx(a)se.linux.org>rg>:
Wednesday, 7 November 2007, Andre Engels wrote:
However, I think that we should cut ourselves
*some* slack in the
depiction of copyrighted works. Very little can be photographed
otherwise - a car or a piece of technical apparatus is designed, and
thus copyrighted,
No; the design of a utilitarian object is subject to a higher threshold
of originality and is therefore usually not copyrightable. The design
of cars are instead protected by design patents. Things like closeups
of hood ornaments or badges, however, are problematic.
I don't see where you get the rule that there is a 'higher threshold
of originality' in these cases. Perhaps in some countries that is
true, but I am quite sure it's not in my native Netherlands. The judge
there is to decide whether the work has an 'own, original character'.
This is not different for industrial design, and indeed industrial
design, clothing and furniture are often judged to be copyrighted
works.
and even
photographing a person would be
problematic, as you'll have to reckon with their clothing designer.
Again, most aspects of clothing design will be dictated by its
utilitarian properties. Of course, the print on a t-shirt may be
copyrightable, but if the objective is to depict the person, such
inclusions are usually secondary and acceptable under the de minimis
rule.
Again, I disagree with the first part of your statement. Judges have
judged that combinations of a certain placement of bags, a type of
stitching used etcetera are enough to make a work copyrightable. A de
nihilis claim would indeed work in this case, but not in the previous
one. Still, in these cases people get sued for making replicas or for
objects that are too similar, not for pictures and other similar
depictions of them.
--
Andre Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels