> Kevin J. Comerford | internet: czbb020[_at_]access.texas.gov
> Director of Information Technology aol: DalMuseum wrote
>
> >There is definitely aesthetic and intellectual content in the way a
> >photographer chooses to portray an art object in a documentary
> >photograph.
What about a painting? A photographic representation of a painting? We all have been assuming it is copyrightable, but it is only copy photography. And if the Wizard of Oz drawings aren't copy rightable, why should copy photography be?
Maryly Snow
UCBerkeley Architecture
<slides[_at_]ced.berkeley.edu>
Received on Mon Apr 04 1994 - 23:11:04 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:11 GMT