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."

I'm sympathetic to your argument, but if I used two different color copiers to reproduce a Van Gogh, I suspect I would also see a difference. Why isn't that copyrightable. If the choice of Kodak vs. Fuji injects sufficient originality to merit copyright protection, why not the choice between Xerox and Canon. And if that's the case, is it ever possible to draw a principled distinction between a "slavish reproduction" and an "original rendering" of a work of art. Seems to me that every reproduction departs in some particular from the original -- is there a legal significance in inadvertant vs. intentional originality.

John Noble
<jnoble[_at_]dgsys.com> Received on Thu Apr 08 1999 - 14:17:06 GMT