Re: Fine Art Reproductions

On Tue, 6 Apr 1999, Robin M. Eichel <baliny[_at_]aol.com> wrote:
>
> I speak not only as the Rights Manager of the Bridgeman Art Library/NY
> but also as a trained photographer. Your comments regarding the lack
> of purposefulness in the choices of film, lighting, etc. regarding
> the taking of a photograph indicate that you haven't ever attempted
> to photograph seriously. To illustrate:
>
> Using your point and shoot camera, take a snapshot of a family member
> with Kodak color film then again with Fuji color film. You'll see the
> difference (and get copyright, for that matter).
>
> To say that such decisions are "inherent to the process" likens - and
> reduces - photography to the status as of a photocopy machine. A
> photographer does not just "point and shoot."

Though I haven't read the Bridgeman decision (why get bogged down with the actual law?<g>), isn't what is key, though potentially unstated, what the photographer was *trying* to do?

In other words, lets accept as a given that a photographer makes dozens of decisions before releasing the shutter that will affect the final product, and even that two photographers trying to make an exact copy of a painting will produce visibly different results. If what the photographer is *trying* to do is make an exact-as-possible representation of the original, isn't the photographer in effect saying that he was attempting to keep originality out of the process (to the extent possible)? It seems to me that what Bridgeman wanted was not a photographer's interpretation of a painting, but a photographic "replica" of the painting. Doesn't/shouldn't that have a bearing on the copyright analysis?

OTOH, if, let's say, what you are producing is a series called "Famous photographers photograph Van Gogh's Sunflowers," where you have different photographers "interpret" the painting, and publish each's results, then you are selling originality and it is much easier to argue, IMO, that the results are copyrightable.

Patrick W. Begos
Begos & Horgan, LLP
NY and CT
begos[_at_]ibm.net Received on Wed Apr 07 1999 - 13:01:04 GMT