Re: Fine Art Reproductions

On 27 April 1999, Timothy Arnold-Moore <tja[_at_]mds.rmit.edu.au> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 21 Apr 1999, Tyler Ochoa <tochoa[_at_]law.whittier.edu> wrote:
> >
> > On 04/20/99, Timothy Arnold-Moore <tja[_at_]mds.rmit.edu.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > Note that English law did not *and still does not* prevent the
> > > creation of adaptations (derivative works) of artistic works.
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > Is that true? Does that mean that someone in the U.K. can make a
> > movie adadptation of a book without the author's (or copyright
> > holder's) permission? I have a hard time believing that, so
> > perhaps I did not understand you correctly.
>
> Yes it is true but only for artistic works. A book is a literary work
> (as is a computer program). Artistic works cover things like paintings,
> photographs, drawings, sculpture, etc.

i think there is a confusion here - a derivative work in english law can acquire a separate copyright in the infringer if sufficient originality is added but nevertheless that person will still be liable to the owner of the original work if a substantial work is incorporated into the derivative work and if the owner of the derivative work sues an infringer the court may require any damages recovered to be partially paid over to the owner of the original work incorporated into the derivative work - see ZYX MUSIC GMBH V KING [1997] 2 ALL ER 129 - thus a photgrapher might well be held to have created an original work but nevertheless still have to pay damages to the owner of the copyright in the artistic work - I suppose it all depends on how much added originality and of course photography has always been controversial in this direction

howard johnson
cardiff law school
<hojo1610[_at_]tesco.net> Received on Tue Apr 27 1999 - 17:28:33 GMT