This reminds me of the issue where a photographer took
a picture of the Statue of Liberty, then a magazine
printed the photograph without the photographer's
permission. The magazine felt that because the image
was of an item in the public domain (the Statue of
Liberty) then an image of what's in the public domain,
is also in the public domain. This turned out to not
be the case. Especially in this instance where the
photographer, at expense to himself, photographed the
Statue of Liberty from a helicopter he hired to get
the shot! The law came down on the side of the
photographer. Now it gets really fuzzy, when someone
takes a photograph of a copyrighted work of art...hmm,
who owns the copyright then?
I did some research for a website I designed and
compiled a short copyright page at:
www.intouchusa.com/copyright.html
ed
web/gadget guru
--- Robert Benschop <robertbenschop@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
> on 10-09-2000 5:04, jimthej at jimthej@pacbell.net
> wrote:
>
> > To back up Don and to help Chris, my school
> district, with a team of lawyers
> > has a copyright policy statement that are the
> guidelines for fair use it is
> > 3 pages back and front closely typed.
> > To use the situations here, the school report,
> given to the teacher,
> > returned to the student, consigned to the
> wastebasket, or the box of
> > memorabilia is probably fair use. The same report
> published on the web as
> > part of an electronic portfolio is pushing the
> issue, and probably needs
> > permission. The same report offered for sale on
> the report black market is a
> > definite violation.
> > Reproducing the photo, even for your own use,
> unless the photographer gave
> > you the rights to it (icicles hanging from
> Lucifer's nose) is definitely a
> > violation.
> > As to the T-shirt reproductions, since it is a
> sample of the entire work, it
> > would be smart to get the author's permission. Let
> him and his publishers
> > worry about reproduction rights from the original
> designers/owners.
>
> Straight from MacWorld's july 2000 issue: (page 114)
> "Not every photograph is copyrightable. To create
> original works of
> authorship, photographers must add their vision."
> BTW, if anybody is in DTP on this list, read the
> following carefully (from
> the same page) "Designers might find it hard to
> determine where originality
> begins. Copyright doesn't protect the formatting,
> layout or arrangement of
> material on a page"
> Now that did shock me, since there is quite a bit of
> graphic design that I
> considered copyrightable and very creative.
> (they even show a beautiful CD cover from Ryuichi
> Sakamoto that is not
> protected by copyright.)
> I wish the photographers of your school district a
> lot of luck and I'm
> curious if somebody wants to make clear where the
> artistic vision is in the
> repro pictures of the t-shirts.
> I rest my case.
>
>
> Robert Benschop
>
> ***************************************
> NewtonTalk brought to you by:
>
> EVOTE.COM -- the ESPN of politics on the Internet!
> All the players, all the news, and the hottest
> analysis and features (plus 'toons!) anywhere....
> visit http://www.evote.com today!
>
> ***************************************
> Need Subscribe/Unsubscribe info?
>
> Visit the NewtonTalk section at
http://www.planetnewton.com
=====
this is a temporary sig file until I can figure out a more clever one to use
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
***************************************
NewtonTalk brought to you by:
EVOTE.COM -- the ESPN of politics on the Internet! All the players, all the news, and the hottest analysis and features (plus 'toons!) anywhere.... visit http://www.evote.com today!
***************************************
Need Subscribe/Unsubscribe info?
Visit the NewtonTalk section at http://www.planetnewton.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 12 2000 - 00:00:08 CDT