Re: copyright of photographs of two dimensional works of art

From: Robert Honan <robertus[_at_]harbornet.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 1997 03:34:35 -0700

Robert Panzer <bigbusie[_at_]aol.com> wrote:
>
> I would like to hear people's opinions on whether a photograph (or
> transparency) taken straight-on of a two dimensional work of art
> (i.e., drawing or painting) is protectable by U.S. copyright. This
> would be regardless of whether the underlying work of art is protected
> by copyright. Does anyone know of any case law which directly deals
> with this issue?

     Assuming that the photograph contained at least some originality, yes it would be copyrightable. The next question would be if the work photographed was copyrighted, was the photograph made with the consent of the photograph's copyright holder. If the photo is necessarily original it would still be a derivative work, if it did not contain enough original content it would merely be a copy. Both derivative works and copies require consent of the copyright holder, unless they qualify as a fair use.

Robert Joseph Honan
robertus[_at_]harbornet.com
http://www.harbornet.com/folks/honan/index.html ==+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+===+= 1L in the fall of '98 'till then,
studying everything I can.

---

"Beware of strong liquor,
 it can make you shoot at tax collectors, and miss."

                                    Lazerous Long -- RAH
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Received on Wed May 28 1997 - 10:37:01 GMT