> Using the photography example
> raised in another message, a photo is a copyrighted work and if the holder
> vanishes completely, then that photo is forever (well, at least for all
> practical purposes) locked away from use due to current copyright law. But
> what if another photographer manages to shoot the same object under
> essentially the same lighting conditions and manages to get the exposure and
> everything to be very similar to the earlier work. Has the copyright on the
> first photo been violated? I suspect that this is an area where an
> incredible amount of hair splitting goes on.
>
> - Eric.
Sorry not to include your whole message but, this goes back to a year or do
ago when copyright came up. Don't confuse the Right to copy vs. copyright.
Chime in anytime Robert :-) remember the Golden Gate bridge example. I can
take a picture of the Golden Gate bridge and you can come along behind me
and place your tripod in the same holes mine may and take YOUR picture. You
may use all you want, but if you use mine, and I'm talking about the real
tangible piece of film (the same holds true for a digital image) , if you
somehow manage to get your hands on my film and use it, you are in violation
of MY copyright the moment you use it. Not if I catch you.
Now if say for example you copy my image of a pair of flaming shoes flying
out of a bowl of red jello, you are now in violation of my copyright by
means of plagiarism. So copyrights and the right to copy or I should say
copyright and rights to publish are to different things governed by the
Copyright law.
Don
-- This is the Newtontalk mailinglist - http://www.newtontalk.net To unsubscribe or manage: visit the above link or mailto:newtontalk-request_at_newtontalk.net?Subject=unsubscribe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Wed Oct 03 2001 - 12:01:36 EDT