Re: Re: CR in X-ray works- More of fireworks than opinions

Visible light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum and so are X-rays. Using an x-ray to create an image on a photographic film is certainly analogous (indeed, identical, except you can't see the radiation) to exposing a film to visible light. You click a switch on the camera or x-ray machine. Focus the light/xray on a photographic film. Develop the film. Same process.

Under the theory that some how we should interpret "processes" in a cramped way, then all digital photography would be excluded since the process is not the same. A camera with light falling on a ccd and converted into a digital computer file seems far more remote from old photography than an x-ray.

It seems the intent of Berne's language was to be broad, not narrow; to cover more, not less. To cover x-rays and digital images. It also seems that the scientific meaning of "light," to the extent there is one, is not really determinative here.

Steve

On Tuesday, March 22, 2005, at 06:20 PM, Mark Davison wrote:

> I don't have the scientific expertise to decide whether an x-ray uses
> 'light' but if it doesn't, its copyright may be questionable. The
> wording and history of the Berne Convention provides some insight into
> the meaning of ‘a process similar to photography’. Article 2(1) of the
> Berne Convention refers to photographs and works produced by
> ‘analogous processes’. The emphasis here is on the word ‘processes’
> and it seems clear that it is not sufficient to claim that the image
> produced is similar to a photograph because the wording ‘works
> producing visual effects analogous to photography’ was specifically
> rejected during the negotiation of the relevant version of the Berne
> Convention.[1] <#_ftn1> Consequently, it may be argued that any
> photograph must use a process that relies on light.[2] <#_ftn2> In
> addition, s4(2) of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (UK)
> defines a photograph as ‘a recording of light or other radiation on
> any medium on which an image is produced or from which an image may by
> any means be produced, and which is not part of a film.” This suggests
> that older definitions that refer to light but not other radiation may
> not encompass x-rays. Again, I don't have the scientific background to
> answer that question.
>

-- 
Prof. Steven D. Jamar                                 vox:  202-806-8017
Howard University School of Law                       fax:  202-806-8428
2900 Van Ness Street NW	                    mailto:sjamar[_at_]law.howard.edu
Washington, DC  20008      http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar

"The only things truly worth doing cannot be accomplished in a single 
lifetime."

Prof. Goler Teal Butcher, after Reinhold Neibuhr