On Tue, 10 Nov 1998, Steven M. Hoffer <worldvu[_at_]well.com> wrote:
>
> A colleague has asked me to explore whether the merger doctrine
> described in Hart v. Dan Chase Taxidermy, 967 F. Supp. 70
> (NDNY 199), is supported by other similar cases, particularly
> where a derivative image in question depicts a specific animal.
> Also, is it settled that merger an issue of infringement rather
> than copyrightability? Authority either way would be useful.
>
> Put another way, suppose Ms. Y uses Mr. X's copyrighted photo
> of a cheetah in air-borne in mid-stride, and reduces it to a
> silhouette of the cat. If she then modifies it in several other
> respects that are clear only upon close inspection, can she use
> that image on her brand of tennis shoe without violating the
> photographer's copyright. Is the concept of the cheetah in
> mid-stride the kind of "idea" that is outside copyright protection,
> or is the tennis shoe image a derivative work that infringes? Does
> it matter that the "idea" could be from perceived from more than
> one angle?
>
> All comments welcome.
I believe that's basically the definition of the creative process, which is a constant process of 'signifying' upon 'signifiers', that is, responding, to existing materials in the human (metaphysical and physical) experience. Ultimately (are you talking about Puma tennis shoes?) the image-maker has created a new image. The form of a cheetah mid-stride is not copyrightable; the image as it exists as a particular photo of a specific moment in time is. This image is not about one cheetah, but the movement of cheetahs in general.
|||||||||||||||||<<<<<>>>>>||||||||||||||||||<<<<<>>>>>||||||||||||||||||Madeleine R. Fix
|||||||||||||||||<<<<<>>>>>||||||||||||||||||<<<<<>>>>>||||||||||||||||||Received on Thu Nov 12 1998 - 15:46:31 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:33 GMT