Re: Copyright in Public Domain Photos

On 99-07-03, Bob Stock <bstock[_at_]mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/29/99, Robert Panzer <bigbusie[_at_]aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that the case is saying
> > that there is not enough originality in a photograph of a two-
> > dimensional work of art (regardless of copyright status of the work)
> > to have a copyright of its own, derivative or not.
>
> The case does not say this. The court found that a photograph shot
> by a photographer whose goal was to copy a painting as faithfully as
> possible is insufficiently original to be copyrightable:
>
> "[A] photograph which is no more than a copy of the work of another
> as exact as science and technology permit lacks originality."

Perhaps I am not understanding Bob Stock's response to my original post; it seems like he is saying the same thing I am -- but in a different way? Unless he is saying that the intent of the photographer is the issue. That if the photographer does not intend for the photo to be a faithful reproduction then a new copyright exists. Hence, unless a photo is made for the purpose of further reproduction in say, a book on art, then a photographer could always claim that the indent was not a faithful copy. But isn't the bottom line what the photo looks like? I would think intent is ultimately irrelevant. If the average person on the street says the photo looks exactly like the painting except that its a photo version not the original, then I think that would indicate non-copyrightability. Even with Bob Stock's post, doesn't my original post still stand, that the issue is what is considered orginality, not whether the photo is taken of a pd work or a copyrightable work.

Robert Panzer
<bigbusie[_at_]aol.com> Received on Wed Jul 07 1999 - 05:17:26 GMT