Re: A mere photograph

From: Laura N. Gasaway <unclng[_at_]email.unc.edu>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 10:05:51 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

On Wed, 23 Apr 1997, 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?

      Under U.S. law, a photograph simply has to meet the originality (with a smidgen of creativity) and fixation requirements to qualify for copyright. Some have argued that so-called "copy photography" of works of art should not be entitled to such protection, but to date that is not the case.

      As some photography almost becomes the equivalent of a photocopy because it is so mechanical, I have wondered if congress or the courts may not impose an additional creativity requirement on photos.

Lolly

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Laura N. Gasaway			Phone:  919-962-1049
Director of the Law Library &
	Professor of Law		Fax:	919-962-1193
CB # 3385
University of North Carolina		e-mail: laura_gasaway[_at_]unc.edu

Chapel Hill, NC 27599 Received on Thu Apr 24 1997 - 14:16:22 GMT