2007/1/24, Jay R. Ashworth <jra(a)baylink.com>om>:
If I draw a
picture of something, and you come along and take a
photograph of it, then by your reasoning you would own the copyright
in it. What happened to my copyright? Did it magically disappear when
you took the picture?
Nope. Your hand-drawn picture is a piece of creative work in which you
own copyright. Referring to Bridgeman, which *does* apply to this
circumstance, though I'm still not convinced it's generally applicable
because I haven't read the case -- the summary suggests it doesn't
cover enough to apply generally to the issue on point -- if I made a
photograph of your drawing which was purposefully a clean reproduction
with no artistic modification, then any copyright that would inhere in
my photograph would be yours.
If, however, I took a picture of you standing next to your framed
drawing hanging on your wall, there would most certainly be
copyrightable expression in my photograph that was not solely
derivative of your copyright in your work.
Watch your use of the word 'solely'. If it is a slavish copy, it's the
copyright of the original author. If it is just a minor thing on a larger
photograph, it is copyright of the photographer (with the image being fair
use or some similar defense). In cases in-between, there might well be a
double copyright - when you make that picture in such a way that (say) the
picture is half of the photograph, and then someone goes and publishes that
photograph, he might well be infringing on BOTH your AND my copyright.
In reality, I still have my copyright in the picture,
and your
photograph is a derivative work, which in the
absence of a licence for
you to create derivative works, I also own the copyright to.
*To the extent that there's no creative input of mine in my
photograph*.
No, to the extent that the photograph is a derivative work of the picture.
If A owns the copyright in
software/etc, and B takes a
picture of it, then in the absence of a licence
permitting B to use
the software/etc to create derivative works, A owns the copyright in
the picture. What your rights are when you take a picture is
determined by what licence you had to use the original thingy you took
a picture of.
I assert that a copyright in the *program code* to Microsoft Word does
*not* constitute a copyright in *the millions of different possible
visual displays that program could produce* -- especially when you
consider that those displays can differ markedly based on the choices
of system fonts and color themes chosen by the computer's operator.
Well, there must be a creative act on the side of Microsoft and its
programmers. Whether there are such decisions of any importance, or the
choices are all either caused by the nature of being a text editor or
otherwise non-creative, is something for the judge to decide - although the
more likely outcome, I think, would be that the judge finds "no reasonable
case of damage". Actual speaking in favor of Microsoft would probably only
have chances if the outlook of Microsoft Word would be copied quite
precisely by another text editor program.
You got any cases that suggest that interpretation is incorrect?
Statutes, even?
--
Andre Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels