Re: A mere photograph

From: <Greg.MacGowan[_at_]Law.UC.Edu>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 09:55:11 -0400

Lesley Harris <copyrtlaw[_at_]aol.com> wrote:
>
> If I take a "mere" photograph of a copyright work, under US Copyright
> Act, would that photograph automatically have copyright protection or
> must I put some "skill and labour" into taking the photograph? If
> protected, is it protected to the same degree as any other copyright
> work?

First off, the photograph is a derivitive work, so be very sure you have the permission of the individual who holds copyright in the work you are photographing.

As for the photograph itself, "skill and labour" is irrelevant, except to the extent that it may add expression to your work. Lighting, camera angles, visual effects are all examples of additional expression in a photographic work. These may give your work a particular style and distinctiveness which would raise the level of protection (IMHO).

The above is not legal advice, and represents my opinion only.

---

Greg S. MacGowan
Center for Electronic Text in the Law (CETL) University of Cincinnati College of Law
Cincinnati, OH 45221-0142

phone: (513) 556-2334
fax: (513) 556-6265
Email: Greg.MacGowan[_at_]Law.UC.edu
http://www.law.uc.edu/CETL/gsm Received on Thu Apr 24 1997 - 14:00:23 GMT