Bob Maxey <written_by@xxxxxxx> writes: > > >>>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. II A 10 is directly to the point, I think. If you believe it was overturned on appeal, by all means look it up and let us know. > 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. Now you're off in the land of theory. Courts decide this sort of thing all the time; lots of law depends on the state of mind of the person who committed an act, and generally on "intention". > 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. Yes, instead of trying to prove your assertion yourself. I've done my share of research; if you think there's any evidence (as opposed to theoretical arguments) for your position, by all means show us some. -- David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@xxxxxxxx>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
