<<It is clear
<<that the high quality photographic reproductions of original art with
<<which most of this discussion has been concerned would meet the standard
<<and would thus be copyrightable.
Well, this now confuses me utterly. If laborious manual copying, which must of necessity involve innumerable decisions of an artistic nature about line weight, shading, fluidity, etc., is not copyrightable, how can a photograph, where the nearly undistinguishable considerations of lighting and positioning (speaking now solely of photographs of twodimensional artworks) be subject of copyright?
Vance R. Koven
attorney at law
Boston, MA
<koven[_at_]umbsky.cc.umb.edu>
Received on Thu Mar 31 1994 - 15:34:04 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:11 GMT