IANAL, but I would say it's solid as it has been cited in Latimer v. Roaring Toyz, Inc., 2008 WL 697346 (M.D. Fl.) ________________________________ From: Howard Cheng <howard(a)howcheng.com> To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 4:42:29 PM Subject: [Commons-l] Photos of statues not considered derivatives in the US? According to http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.h…, Judge William H. Pauley III of the Southern District of New York ruled in SHL Imaging, Inc. v. Artisan House, Inc., 117 F. Supp. 2d 301 (S.D. N.Y. 2000) that photographs of statues/sculptures are not considered derivative works, noting: "A photograph of Jeff Koons's 'Puppy' sculpture in Manhattan's Rockefeller Center merely depicts that sculpture; it does not recast, transform, or adapt Koons's sculptural authorship. In short, the authorship of the photographic work is entirely different and separate from the authorship of the sculpture." Note that this is the same court that issued the Bridgeman v. Corel ruling. If this hasn't been overturned at any point, and the blog post linked above doesn't indicate that it has, then we should start allowing photos of statues in the US, and perhaps anywhere even where there is no FOP for statues (similar to what we did for PD-Art). Thoughts? -h _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l