They're called derivative works, and they are covered quite
specifically under US copyright law.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#101
A couple cases here:
http://www.artslaw.org/DERIV.HTM
The hard part is proving that someone made a copy based on another's
work. If the copier admits in court that they saw the original and set
out to reproduce it, they're sunk. If they deny knowledge of the
original work, it's more challenging to prove. In some cases I imagine
it would be up to a judge or jury to decide whether they believe the
copy or very similar work was made independently.
I think it would be hard to deny knowledge of many unique works. Let's
say, for example, you made your own version of "Dogs Playing Poker,"
(correct title is "Looks Like Four of a Kind") and for argument's sake
say it's still protected by copyright (I don't know if it is). Do you
really think you could get away with making your own copy of it and
denying knowledge of the original?
Rich Mason
PS: OPA!
On Nov 19, 2005, at 6:33 PM, Bob Maxey wrote:
> >>>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
