Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite Save As Favorite View Article Stats
No comments

Life Arts

Copyright Law Does Not Cover Photographs Which Merely Copy Paintings (And Other Photographs) Which Are Now Public Domain

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It


opednews.com

These conclusions are based on the applicable Laws and Court Decisions, as I read them, as shown below.

The applicable Federal Court decision is BRIDGEMAN ART LIBRARY, LTD. v. COREL CORP., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), as linked below.
http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/d02nysc/99-01031.pdf and also at
http://www.patriot.net/users/bmcgin/bridgemanartlibrary-99-01031.pdf

And the Federal Copyright Law is available at
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=17&sec= and elsewhere.

THE LEGAL REASONING - Copyright protection is provided for "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression," including photographs and other graphic images. (United States Code, Title 17, Section 102) But we note that a work must be an "original work of authorship" in order for the Copyright Law to apply. Works containing little or no originality are not entitled to copyright protection. The person who paints an original painting or takes an original photograph is thereby creating "an original work of authorship," and this work is entitled to copyright protection. A photographic copy of such an original work, done with permission of the copyright owner, would be considered a "derivative work;" (Title 17, Section 101) and its entitlement to copyright protection flows from the entitlement of the original work which it copies, plus any additional originality embodied in the photographic copy itself. But if the original work is in the Public Domain, the photographic copy of it has no entitlement for protection flowing from the original, because the original itself has none, being in the Public Domain. Only if the photographic copy has some significant elements of originality in itself does it become entitled to copyright protection in its own right. Thus a mere "slavish copy," - a copy which simply reproduces the Public-Domain original accurately - is not eligible for copyright protection. And it, too, becomes part of the Public Domain, having no significant elements of originality in itself.

Be aware that the copyright owners of many newspapers, magazines, websites, books, and other media do frequently post copyright notices which seem to be claiming copyright on the entire publication and everything in it. Many casual users are thereby deterred from exercising their legal rights to use whatever Public Domain material may be contained within, unidentified as such. I have previously spoken against this deceptive and possibly fraudulent practice, particularly in my article here: http://www.loveallpeople.org/falseandfraudulentclaimsofcopyright.html

The Copyright Law specifically covers these cases in Title 17, Section 103(b), where it says, "The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material."


So do not be afraid to jump in and freely use whatever Public Domain material you may find, wherever you may find it. This includes everything published in the United States before 1923, plus much more. And this specifically includes all "slavish-copy" photographs - regardless of when they were made - of art (or other photographs) which are now in the Public Domain. - (by Rev. Bill McGinnis)

TEXT OF THE APPLICABLE FEDERAL COURT DECISION is linked above and is also shown on the
HTML version of this message, which is located at http://www.loveallpeople.org/copyrightlawdoesnotcover.html

The decision is identified as BRIDGEMAN ART LIBRARY, LTD. v. COREL CORP., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) - Lewis A. Kaplan, United States District Judge.

Blessings to you. May God help us all.

Rev. Bill McGinnis, Director - LoveAllPeople.org
http://www.loveallpeople.org

 

www.LoveAllPeople.org

Rev. Bill McGinnis is an Internet Christian minister, writer and publisher. He is Director of LoveAllPeople.org, a small private think tank in Alexandria, Virginia, and all of its related websites, including (more...)
 
Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Sarah Palin Broke The Ethics Law In Alaska, And Can Be Impeached

Unregulated Capitalism Harms The Country These Six Ways

Congress Can Overrule The President On Any Decision - Including Our Policies On Iraq.

"Yes We Can" - the poem, based on a speech by Barack Obama

Human Life Begins At The First Heartbeat, During The Third Week After Conception.

The Martin Luther King Speeches: Why Can't We Copy Them?

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
No comments