Re: Re: Coipyright in the Hollywood Sign

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Anne Marie Hawkins wrote:

> Also, as Terry has pointed out, if the photograph was taken
> independently by a member of the University's staff from an open public
> place, wouldn't that fall under the Section 120(a) Copyright Act
> exemption?

I think I pointed out that it wouldn't fall under that exception. 120(a) applies to architectural works, and I don't see the sign as an architectural work, which is defined as a design of a building. I don't see the sign qualifying as a "building."

"Building" is not further definied in the 1976 Act, but I vaguely remember the congressional report that accompanied the Architectural Works Copyright Act (to the extent that you're comfortable relying on such resources to construe a statute) as explaining that a "building" was something like any sort of structure that is ordinarily used (even temporarily) as shelter for humans. As I recall, in included examples of things like gazebos and other things that a human beingwould normally walk into; but would be a stretch to extend to a sign on a hillside.

If I was unclear and implied otherwise, that wasn't my intent. Received on Sat Jun 18 2005 - 01:05:16 GMT