Re: Re: Photo booth copyrights

Rich Stim wrote: For example, if copyright cannot extend to the human face...

<<<< Michael Jackson's plastic surgeon might disagree with that assumption. His work on the human face might just qualify as an original work of authorship, albeit in a rather grotesque medium. ;->

But seriously, it is my understanding that the extent to which copyright protections are enjoyed by a copyright owner is dependent upon several factors, including the factor under consideration in this discussion --- the extent to which the author exercises elements of original authorship in creating the work. I own a book of photobooth self-portraits, all of which are highly original, conceptual, creative works.

With regard to the vesting of copyright --- I own a camera, a vintage photobooth, a paintbrush, chisel, and a computer. My ownership of those tools does not necessarily provide me with ownership of the copyright in any works created by non-employees using those tools. But if I use my camera or photobooth in exercising authorship in the creation of a work, but instruct an assistant or portrait subject to physically trip the shutter or drop the coin into the booth, I have authored the work and ultimately caused its fixation, and thus own the copyright. The assistant or subject has made a de minimis contribution to the creation of the work by tripping the shutter under my direction. It might nevertheless be prudent to establish contractual terms defining the vesting of copyright under such circumstances.

And about self- portraits --- the protections afforded a self portrait are not necessarily greater or lesser than any other portrait. For example, which portrait receives greater copyright protection:

Warhol's self-portrait
http://www.getty.edu/art/collections/objects/o114423.html OR
Avedon's portrait of Warhol?
http://www.artnet.com/ag/fineartdetail.asp?aid=1752&wid=161757

S_edlik Received on Wed Dec 24 2003 - 22:35:06 GMT