On Mon, 02 Jun 1997, Robert A. Baron <rabaron[_at_]pipeline.com> wrote:
>
> The first sentence in Robert Honan's reply is the easy answer. The
> question that remains is how can one determine what is "original" in
> a reproductive photograph of a two-dimensional object. Surely the
> photograph will be different from the original object in the ways
> photographs are never the same as their subjects. Some of these
> differences can be attributed to the limitations of the media, while
> others can be attributed to conscious (or unconscious) decisions made
> by the photographer. The limitations of the photographic technology
> cannot be said to produce originality, one would think; but, reductions
> have an aesthetic of their own. These elements and those which have
> been added to the original make up what has previously been called in
> this forum "a thin copyright."
>
> Yet, are there reproductive photographs in which the originality in
> the photograph is so minimal that its copyright is out of the question?
> Are there photographs in which originality is so obvious that copyright
> is clearly warranted? To answer these questions we must understand what
> "originality" is, and that is an issue for students of aesthetics. To
> codify a definition of "originality" for the service of commerce may,
> in the end, do more harm than good, for the answers will always be and
> should be culturally and historically determined.
>
> What about the intent of the photograph? Is the originality of
> reproductive photographs assumed to be minimal simply because the
> intent of the photographer is to be as minimally original and as
> objectively faithful as possible? Or is "intent" to be understood as
> independent from the result. After all, the intent may have been to
> be faithful, but the photograph certainly will encode many differences.
>
> These questions are being asked with ever greater urgency these days,
> as scholars and other users are trying to claim that photographs made
> after public domain works of art are themselves uncopyrightable, and
> museums and others, who seek a lively business in licensing the use of
> such photographs, claim copyright in photos of works in the public
> domain. Culture, after all, is a commodity today.
>
> To my mind, the important question is the following: When it comes to
> singular unique works of art that are no longer protected by copyright,
> how are the demands of the public domain made manifest? If museums and
> object owners can copyright their reproductive photographs and restrict
> access to the objects by those who wish to take their own photographs
> of objects (as is their prerogative), is there any right that the public
> may exercise to use images of such works?
>
> Literary works in the public domain are always accessible for further
> use, but art objects, by virtue of their singularity, challenge our
> idea of copyright as a protection with defined limits.
Robert:
Very well put. And that's a compliment from someone on the "other" side of the argument.
As well as from someone with (too much) experience spending hours, days, even months struggling along with a photographer to photograph paintings. Often unsuccessfully -- and then on to the next photographer-victim, for a further attempt... If the "sweat" standard has anything to do with it, these photographs are as original as they come. They express enormous amounts of knowledge, skill, mathematical and chemical calculation, optical physics, aesthetic judgement, and, as I can attest, just plain sweat. They are, indeed, original creations.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:25 GMT