>I agree that there is considerable skill and discernment necessary
>to photograph well a painting or a building. The crux of the issue
>is whether that skill is sufficient reason to keep such painting or
>building off the Internet and out of educator's hands. Don't
>Michelangelo's David and Leonardo's Mona Lisa "belong" to all of us
>at some level? Certainly, the person who took the best, or a very
>good photography needs to be compensated, but tracking these people
>down for educational purposed is not-cost-effective. Using their
>images in a 35mm slide form for educational purposes is allowable
>under Section 102 Fair Use of Title 17. The issue is what happens
>in the digital environment? I still believe that low to moderate
>resolution files have no commercial value on the net and should
>therefore fall under the Section 102 protections.
>Maryly Snow
>UC Berkeley
>slides[_at_]ced.berkeley.edu
>
>
>> On Tue, 5 Apr 1994, Maryly Snow wrote:
>>
>> > 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?
>>
>> There's no way I would consider a studio photograph of a 2-dimensional
>> original object "Copy" Photography, or draw any parallels between
>> photography of original artworks and photography of reproductions of
>> artworks.
>>
> Copy photography requires a certain amount of skill (if one can
>> call it that), but there is no conceptual statement being made in the
>> duplication process.
>>
>>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>> Kevin J. Comerford | internet: czbb020[_at_]access.texas.gov
>> Director of Information Technology |
>> Dallas Museum of Art | compuserve: 71233,2412
>> 1717 North Harwood | voice: 214-922-1281
>> Dallas, TX 75201 | fax: 214-954-0174
>>
>>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
As both a photographer and a law professor, I worry about this willingness to freely copy even duplication slides. I also do not like the attitude that a low-resolution digital image is not a copy for copyright purposes.
Even duplication slides of flat art work call for creative decisions -- the crux of the DuChampian definition of art -- what lighting to use, color balance decisions, even framing and cropping since few art works fit the 1.5:1 ratio of a 35mm frame. Comparison of different photos of the same painting will show large differences in interpretation of even "copy work". Given the low standard of originality for copyright, I don't think protection for these images should be dismissed out of hand.
More troublng is the attitude that since it's "only a low resolution copy", it's not really an infringement. The artist's intergity is just as important as his economic interest. I may forbid an infringement of my work because I don't like the quality of the copy just as I may forbid it if the copyist doesn't pay me a royalty. In many ways, it would be more hurtful to me to know that degraded, second-rate copies of my images were circulating than it would to know I was missing a few dollars in royalties.
This idea that "since I'm only doing it poorly, I should be allowed to do it" is a harmful one that should be combatted whereever possible. I would be much more likely to grant a reproduction license to a school or museum for a 40MB Photoshop image and no royalty than I would to grant one for a 1MB low resolution swipe of a handheld scanner by someone paying a large royalty.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Buford C. Terrell What I don't know Professor of Law isn't nearly as South Texas College of Law dangerous as 1303 San Jacinto, Houston, TX 77002 what I think I know\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ Received on Thu Apr 07 1994 - 22:01:23 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:11 GMT