Re: Fair Use Question?

> 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 copy-
> right, 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
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Mr. Terrell comments are thoughtful and useful, but still don't address the fact that the object itself (the thing depicted in the photograph, not the photograph itself as object) is what holds the value and the original or underlying copyright.

The role of education, one of its roles anyway, is to try to disseminate cultural history, visual literacy, art appreciation, architectural design, energy efficiency, handicap access to energy efficient buildings that are well designed with, one hopes, materials that don't despoil the natural landscape. These are a few examples of education in the visual arts and sciences, all requiring visual examples. To prevent access to those images in an educational environment because some photographer used the skill he is supposed to have to begin with and was supposedly recompenses for his image seems to be putting the horse before the cart. While photographers need to make a living, art and architecture and the visual examples that convey them, also need to be taught.

Maryly Snow
slides[_at_]ced.berkeley.edu Received on Fri Apr 08 1994 - 23:25:46 GMT