Re: Would you give away a print to a prospective client?

Bob Maxey <written_by@xxxxxxx> · Sat, 19 Nov 2005 16:33:57 -0700

> >>>Doesn't seem like you should have the power to control what another
> photographer does with his images, as a general thing.  (Specific
> situations like carefully recreating an image of yours, yes, I do
> believe in copyright :-)).  Any more than he has the power to control
> what you do with yours. >>>
> 
> Recreating a photographer's image has nothing to do with copyright
> laws. IT does not violate copyright law. Just bad form and a lack of
> creativity, perhaps. The law does not apply.

>>>If it's *independent* creating, then the law doesn't apply.  But if he
deliberately creates a photo just like yours, it does.  This is
getting into a fairly obscure corner of copyright law, so I'm not
surprised you don't know it, but I wish you'd be a little less certain
with your misinformation.

There's some discussion of this issue in FEIST PUBLICATIONS,
INC. v. RURAL TELEPHONE SERVICE CO., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) (on the web
at <http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/499_US_340.htm>).  And
I believe it's covered in _Photography and the Law_, because I think
that's where I first learned about it.>>>

 The case you cited has nothing to do with my contentions. Please, by all means, cite a case in which a court ruled that I cannot duplicate another photographer's scene. Also, do not forget how the appeals court ruled (if they did) if the decision was fought. Also, think of the repercussions. 

 You said this: "If it's *independent* creating, then the law doesn't apply.  But if he deliberately creates a photo just like yours, it does." Let me ask you how a court would be able to judge if the photographer decided to deliberately recreate an image or he/she just got lucky. Again, think of the repercussions. No longer would you, me, or others be able to take a photo of a famous scene. You might think the rules would not apply to you or the typical photographer, but eventually, the law could be used in ways you might not like.

 Finally, the case you cited does not cover obscure parts of the copyright law; it appears to argue a very basic rule of copyright law and asks the question: can facts be protected? As for me being little less certain with my misinformation, I always invite the reader to prove me wrong. 

 Bob 
 ... 

Get more from the Web  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com