I kinda like it (I don't use it unless it is the opening night for a high demand movie)...
Yes, and I could understand it more if they only had it then. But going to a matinee and not being able to pick the best seats is a bit much. They're always vacant then, and it seems dumb.
What is nice, really nice, is they come and take your order at your seat...so you do not have to wait in line.
Meh. Lowes Boston Common sends a guy to take orders from the whole theater. I guess you'd have to get out of the seat, but only to go down to the front row to fill out the form.
However, that does not mean the copyright holder must sell their work in a form that makes it easy, or even possible, for you to express that right.
Which is why we should probably start requiring it. Not necessarily requiring copies to be in specific formats (other than for deposit purposes, which should be restored to importance) but in prohibiting artificially imposed difficulties, such as DRM. Fail to comply, and you can still publish, but you don't get a copyright on that work. Seems fair to me.
The law says you can make a backup
I don't think so, with regards to most works. Care to point out where it says what you claim?
Well, that's typically if they have some special arrangement with the studio, e.g. to get the videos in before they're being sold through normal retail channels.
Once a video is out for general purchase, there's nothing stopping rental places from getting them like anyone else.
That's probably the answer then -- treaties aren't necessarily self-excuting in the US. Regardless of what the treaty says, with the patent power belonging to Congress as a whole (and not just the Senate), it probably has no force here. If Congress passes a law following up on our treaty obligations, then it counts.
Patents aren't really my field, so I don't know if they have or not, but AFAIK the situation is as I described it earlier.
No, the US used to have a policy of denying immoral inventions patents, but this has ultimately been seen as being a bad idea. IIRC, the current statute requires patents to be issued except where a few narrow conditions crop up, and morality isn't one of them.
I copyright my work these days, not to economically exploit it, but to prevent others from doing so if they are unwilling to share follow on works.
Firstly, at this point in time, everything you make that is copyrightable is copyrighted automatically by the law. You are not in fact choosing to do it for a particular reason.
Secondly, I think you're confusing something. If you are creating works without any expectation of getting anything at all in return, then you appear to not be encouraged to create those works by the availability of copyright, and therefore shouldn't get a copyright since it is superfluous. If, however, what is encouraging you to create works is some form of potential compensation -- even if that compensation comes in the form of other people's works, rather than mere dollars and cents -- then copyright is appropriate, but only because your creation of the work hinges on whether you can economically exploit it.
I for one, would publish way less if registration were a requirement and thus the public domain would suffer
To be honest, I'm dubious. Your posts in this thread are copyrighted. Would you not post on/. if you had to register them in order to protect them? I don't think so. I think that you post here because you enjoy the debate, and the copyright status of the posts is irrelevant.
Given that the system I describe is more or less how we did things from 1710-1977 and that we had a pretty thriving public domain, and that the number of copyrightable works didn't seem to shoot up upon the effective date of the 1976 Act, or the 1989 amendments, I think that those expansions of the law were not really justified.
Plus, you, like most people, are getting stuck on quantity of creation. Copyright is not merely intended to encourage the creation of works, it is intended to encourage the creation of works and their entry into the public domain.
So if under system A, you would create ten works that enter the public domain after ten years, then that's a certain satisfaction of the public good.
If under system B, you create five works, but they enter the public domain after five years, then that's pretty much the same satisfaction of the public good. Maybe more.
It's not enough for works to merely be created. The copyrights have to be as minimal as possible during their term, and the term has to be as short as possible.
I think what you are suggesting may effectively kill GPL programs and the publish early, publish often methods of development. Could you speculate on this thought.
As for that form of development, no I don't think it would matter; no one's stopping people from writing software and publishing it. The issue is whether they get copyrights in them.
As for the GPL, it'd need to be seriously revised because it too closely relies on what the law is now. It wouldn't have worked under the 1909 Act either, though, so it's hardly an issue unique to me. Much as I like the GPL, it's barely a blip on the radar in the overall world of copyrightable works.
Ah, only for a span of time. And the current copyright powerhouses are doing a great (dastardly) job of having that span be elastic and ever stretching. I might be more inclined to agree with you if it were indeed "only for a span of time" and that span was short and fixed.
One year statutory bar to filing, probably from publication, where that's significantly expanded from what it means now (e.g. inclusive of public performance). Five year terms from publication, renewable for up to a total twenty-five year term, plus the filler time to set expirations at the end of the year for administrative convenience. No renewals allowed for software.
Some lesser protection for unpublished works from creation, but with that lapsing if the work is published or registered, and this only to bar people pirating materials still in development.
The registration formalities would require not onl
It would still cost money which would unduly bite the little guy
No, it wouldn't. Remember, the only thing a copyright is really good for is economic exploitation of a work. Creating a copyrightable work is basically a business decision. It represents an investment which the author hopes to recoup later. It's no different from any of the other numerous matters in business. Want to form a corporation? There's a filing fee. Want to register for state or federal trademarks? Ditto. Patent applications? Ditto.
If an author is not willing to demonstrate confidence in himself, well, why should he expect something from me?
It's certainly not as though major authors are going to copyright every little thing they do either, but, already being established in the business world, it's not going to be surprising that they're better at it.
How would this be a bigger burden to society except to those who would take work they did not create and create a derivative and lock up the derivative.
Because that is beneficial to society. The underlying work is in the public domain -- anyone can use it for anything under the sun. That's the ideal of copyright. It's exactly what we want to have happen.
A derivative has been created. That's even better. We want them to be created too. And not only has the one derivative been created, but anyone in the world can create derivatives. How many tens of thousands of adaptations of Shakespeare are there?
Plus of course, the same issue would apply to the derivative -- fail to seek out protection, instead of expecting the world to owe you a living, and it too would be in the public domain.
With my proposal, people could make free use of unmarked works, even to the point of making money from them, they would just be prevented from locking up derivatives/etc.
Yes, but you're going too far. The idea behind copyright is that we want three equally important things: the creation of original works, the creation of derivative works, and for all works to be in the public domain fully and immediately.
In order to stimuate the first one of those goals, we 'spend' the immediate satisfaction of the second two. Not fully, but partially, and only for a span of time.
You're basically saying that where someone creates a derivative work of the kind discussed above, that they should effectively not be able to copyright it; if people can reproduce it, distribute it, prepare derivatives from it, etc. then it's effectively in the public domain.
I think that this would tend to taint those works as sources. You'd mostly but not fully satisfy the third interest, but you would not be fully satisfying the second. And remember, for the kinds of works we're talking about, the author never actually appears to have wanted a copyright, since they never tried to get one, and apparently would have created the work even if there was no copyright in it at all.
So you're incurring a burden on the public by not fully satisfying the third goal, and by not fully laying the ground for the second, and you're not doing so in order to bump up the first or the second. I don't know why you're doing it in fact! There's no important difference between different classes of authors -- authors are not important no matter who they are. Getting stuff produced and in the public domain is all that matters.
Basically, you're wasting public resources and I don't see how the public benefits more than they lose out. And that's the bottom line: the public has to come out ahead, when you add up the degree to which the three public interests I've listed are satisfied.
The best thing to do, I believe, and the easiest from a transactional approach, is to require strict formalities and to not allow for copyright protection if the formalities are not complied with.
Authors that only create works because they rely on the opportunity for profit that copyright affords them will follow the rules because it's important to the
I am not sure I agree with formally register, but at least place a formal notice on the work.
Registration wouldn't be difficult: fill out a form, mail off a few copies to the Library of Congress, and pay a small fee, chiefly to accomodate the costs associated with keeping it on file.
This is basically what we did until 1978, and we still had a lot of it until 1989.
Basically right now too much stuff is copyrighted. Your post up there, it's copyrighted. But why? I bet you would've written it even if it were not copyrighted. So it provides no incentive to creation to you there, and frankly to most things, e.g. internal paperwork, holiday photos, etc. It still incurs a cost on society though. When there is a cost and no benefit, I see something worth getting rid of. I don't see any balance, however.
Anyone who actually planned or even expected that their work was worth something would be able to file. But by getting most work in the public domain, it would clear out dead wood from the system, and ensure that people were not getting unjustified rewards that burdened the public.
We do basically the same thing already with patents: If your invention enters the public awareness, you have one year to file, or else the invention is in the public domain.
You don't have to reproduce an entire work in order to infringe on the reproduction right.
For example, if I cut out all the parts of the Star Wars movies with Ewoks or Jar-Jar, and sold them, do you honestly think that I'm not going to get hammered for it?
In any event, taking a photo of a piece of art could be reproduction, or it could be a derivative, and is equally illegal in both events. So does it matter to any great extent? I suppose I should've been clearer, but still.
So, say you paint a painting and it's really really good. But you need money for heroin or a new Beowolf cluster so you sell it for $100. Buyer then issues 5000 limited edition prints and makes $10M. Is this fair?
Arguably, yes.
I think we ought to require people to formally register for copyrights, as opposed to granting them automatically and indiscriminately.
So ideally, if you don't want a copyright, if you're not willing to exert a small amount of effort to file for one, then why should you get one? It's clearly not worth it to you.
And if this results in the kind of scenario you describe, well, next time you'll know better. You'll either care enough to want a copyright, and take the trouble to get one, or you still won't care, and in that case, why should I care for you?
Think you can walk into any museum and (possibly covertly) take pictures of all the paintings by artists both dead and alive and sell the photos in book? Is this fair?
Setting aside the issue of photographing anything in a museum, which may just not like photography, yes it's perfectly fine to reproduce paintings for commercial purposes where those paintings are in the public domain. How on earth could it not be? That's a key point of copyright, to be able to do that.
I've been using the handle since high school, actually. Didn't pick it out myself; I worked on our underground paper, and the editor at the time assigned it to me.
With regard to photographing houses, I meant the interior.
Maybe -- the only time I can recall anyone discussing the interior was the Yankee Candle case, and it just didn't get far. There've been some issues with photographing stuff, though, e.g. that Gap case, and the thing with, IIRC, the Cosby Show.
Plus there is the distinction between interior design as a whole, and the design of objects such as furniture (which may, but won't always be, utilitarian).
This is one of those areas where your best bet, really, is going to be fair use. And that's why it's important for fair use to be fuzzy; so that it can handle unexpected circumstances like this. Otherwise, this isn't the most well explored area of law.
Sure. The earlier poster is looking at the wrong part of the law, basically.
17 USC 106 sets forth the basic exclusive rights of copyright holders. Among these are the rights of reproduction (106(1)) and preparation of derivatives (106(2)); which applies in this matter depends on the details of the photograph. In any event, they're part of the copyright.
The 106 rights generally pertain to any copyrighted work, regardless of what sort of work it is. You can't reproduce a movie without running into 106, and you can't reproduce a painting for the same reason.
106A adds some additional rights, without taking away any of the 106 rights. Instead of adding them for all copyright holders, it only adds them for a small subset, determined by, among other things, the kind of work the copyright pertains to.
So if you make a movie, then only 106 protects you. If you make a painting, then 106 protects you, and probably 106A will as well.
The earlier poster found that in some cases, the exclusive rights set up in 106A have exceptions. That's true. But those are exceptions only to the 106A rights, not to the 106 rights which are really the focus of this whole deal with people taking pictures of the sculpture.
So really, neither overrides the other. It's just that there are two parallel laws that likely apply to this sculpture. The mere fact that one is subject to an exception does not mean that the other one is; and what we need to be concerned with is not breaking any law, not merely breaking some of them.
By way of analogy, let's say that you had a car. And the state law said 1) that all cars needed a windshield, and 2) that all cars needed bumpers. Then, there was an exception that said that if the car was never made with a windshield, that it didn't need one. Well, some cars (those made with windshields) need both in order to comply with the law. Other cars (those not made with windshields) still need bumpers. In no event can you have a car without both.
I was taught in Photography Class (by a professional photographer with her MFA) that if my pictures were taken in public and for "fine art," they couldn't touch me. She said that the only time somebody could sue me is if I used them for profit that was not fine art related.
I think she's talking about the publicity rights of people you photograph. Certainly the above statement doesn't hold water with regards to copyright.
From a copyright perspective, if you take a picture of a copyrighted work for non-commercial, fine art purposes (n.b. that fine art can be commercial, and in fact frequently is), and you don't have permission from the relevant copyright holder to do so, then you have likely infringed and may face damages as low as $200, or as high as $150,000.
You can allege the defense of fair use (see 17 USC 107), but be aware that this will not always work. The fair use test examines several factors that vary depending on the precise circumstances involved, so we can't make blanket statements as to what is and isn't fair. But I can see situations where the sort of photography you describe above could be fair, and also where it might not be.
Lastly, I am a lawyer, licensed to practice in Massachusetts, but I am not your lawyer. We do not have an attorney-client relationship, and I am not giving you legal advice. If you want legal advice, a privileged relationship, etc. then you should go to a lawyer licensed to practice in your jurisdiction who is willing to provide these things.
I hardly believe that taking a picture of a sculpture could be considered reproducing it.
Reproduction or derivative, I should have said. Either way, it's infringing.
Can you even copyright a sculpture?
Yes. In fact, sculptural works are specifically enumerated in the list of copyrightable subject matter in 17 USC 102(a), which I have quoted here:
(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:
(1) literary works; (2) musical works, including any accompanying words; (3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music; (4) pantomimes and choreographic works; (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works; (7) sound recordings; and (8) architectural works.
(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
Maybe Levi's should copyright a pair of jeans so nobody can wear jeans anymore on TV.
There are some little exceptions to the list above (e.g. 105 prohibits some federal government works from being copyrighted). One of these is the utility doctrine, which would pretty likely prevent jeans as a whole from being copyrightable. Designs or pictures on the jeans, however, very well could be. It's by no means unknown for clothing manufacturers to use copyright to prevent people from making knock-offs.
Because federal law trumps state law, the city cannot authorize people to infringe a copyright held by a third party. If the city bought sufficient rights to the sculpture, then your suggestion might work. If not, then there's nothing they can do to authorize others.
You can't shoot commercially in ANY city park in Chicago.
Which likely means that since the city owns the park, they can control how it is used by others. You could of course photograph the park from elsewhere and be fine as far as that goes, but this doesn't address the copyright issue.
Sorry, I was being overly terse. Reproduction and the preparation of derivatives are both exclusive rights of the copyright holder. Taking a picture is going to be one or the other, depending on the specific details involved.
So no matter what, we can expect that there is prima face infringement of some kind going on when you take a picture of it.
Sorry Chicago, you spent public money so the place is owned by the taxpayers, not the artists.
No, that's irrelevant. The source of funds doesn't make something uncopyrightable.
This was a commissioned work, not art done alone by the artist and intended for sale.
Commissioned works typically are still copyrighted to the artist, regardless of the artist's intentions. Only in rare instances would it matter, and it's likely that this isn't one of them.
Slashdot Mirror
I kinda like it (I don't use it unless it is the opening night for a high demand movie)...
Yes, and I could understand it more if they only had it then. But going to a matinee and not being able to pick the best seats is a bit much. They're always vacant then, and it seems dumb.
What is nice, really nice, is they come and take your order at your seat...so you do not have to wait in line.
Meh. Lowes Boston Common sends a guy to take orders from the whole theater. I guess you'd have to get out of the seat, but only to go down to the front row to fill out the form.
However, that does not mean the copyright holder must sell their work in a form that makes it easy, or even possible, for you to express that right.
Which is why we should probably start requiring it. Not necessarily requiring copies to be in specific formats (other than for deposit purposes, which should be restored to importance) but in prohibiting artificially imposed difficulties, such as DRM. Fail to comply, and you can still publish, but you don't get a copyright on that work. Seems fair to me.
The law says you can make a backup
I don't think so, with regards to most works. Care to point out where it says what you claim?
Well, that's typically if they have some special arrangement with the studio, e.g. to get the videos in before they're being sold through normal retail channels.
Once a video is out for general purchase, there's nothing stopping rental places from getting them like anyone else.
Is Lowes Cherry Hill still doing that idiotic reserved seating thing?
That's probably the answer then -- treaties aren't necessarily self-excuting in the US. Regardless of what the treaty says, with the patent power belonging to Congress as a whole (and not just the Senate), it probably has no force here. If Congress passes a law following up on our treaty obligations, then it counts.
Patents aren't really my field, so I don't know if they have or not, but AFAIK the situation is as I described it earlier.
You should go out and rent Young Frankenstein right away.
As an IP lawyer myself, I'd like to confirm that we are indeed a race of half-man half-shark atomic monsters. Cower before us.
Will we create Frenkenstein?
It's spelled 'Frankenstein.' It's pronounced 'Fronk-en-steen.'
And Frankenstein was the doctor who created the creature, not the creature himself.
No, the US used to have a policy of denying immoral inventions patents, but this has ultimately been seen as being a bad idea. IIRC, the current statute requires patents to be issued except where a few narrow conditions crop up, and morality isn't one of them.
I copyright my work these days, not to economically exploit it, but to prevent others from doing so if they are unwilling to share follow on works.
/. if you had to register them in order to protect them? I don't think so. I think that you post here because you enjoy the debate, and the copyright status of the posts is irrelevant.
Firstly, at this point in time, everything you make that is copyrightable is copyrighted automatically by the law. You are not in fact choosing to do it for a particular reason.
Secondly, I think you're confusing something. If you are creating works without any expectation of getting anything at all in return, then you appear to not be encouraged to create those works by the availability of copyright, and therefore shouldn't get a copyright since it is superfluous. If, however, what is encouraging you to create works is some form of potential compensation -- even if that compensation comes in the form of other people's works, rather than mere dollars and cents -- then copyright is appropriate, but only because your creation of the work hinges on whether you can economically exploit it.
I for one, would publish way less if registration were a requirement and thus the public domain would suffer
To be honest, I'm dubious. Your posts in this thread are copyrighted. Would you not post on
Given that the system I describe is more or less how we did things from 1710-1977 and that we had a pretty thriving public domain, and that the number of copyrightable works didn't seem to shoot up upon the effective date of the 1976 Act, or the 1989 amendments, I think that those expansions of the law were not really justified.
Plus, you, like most people, are getting stuck on quantity of creation. Copyright is not merely intended to encourage the creation of works, it is intended to encourage the creation of works and their entry into the public domain.
So if under system A, you would create ten works that enter the public domain after ten years, then that's a certain satisfaction of the public good.
If under system B, you create five works, but they enter the public domain after five years, then that's pretty much the same satisfaction of the public good. Maybe more.
It's not enough for works to merely be created. The copyrights have to be as minimal as possible during their term, and the term has to be as short as possible.
I think what you are suggesting may effectively kill GPL programs and the publish early, publish often methods of development. Could you speculate on this thought.
As for that form of development, no I don't think it would matter; no one's stopping people from writing software and publishing it. The issue is whether they get copyrights in them.
As for the GPL, it'd need to be seriously revised because it too closely relies on what the law is now. It wouldn't have worked under the 1909 Act either, though, so it's hardly an issue unique to me. Much as I like the GPL, it's barely a blip on the radar in the overall world of copyrightable works.
Ah, only for a span of time. And the current copyright powerhouses are doing a great (dastardly) job of having that span be elastic and ever stretching. I might be more inclined to agree with you if it were indeed "only for a span of time" and that span was short and fixed.
One year statutory bar to filing, probably from publication, where that's significantly expanded from what it means now (e.g. inclusive of public performance). Five year terms from publication, renewable for up to a total twenty-five year term, plus the filler time to set expirations at the end of the year for administrative convenience. No renewals allowed for software.
Some lesser protection for unpublished works from creation, but with that lapsing if the work is published or registered, and this only to bar people pirating materials still in development.
The registration formalities would require not onl
It would still cost money which would unduly bite the little guy
No, it wouldn't. Remember, the only thing a copyright is really good for is economic exploitation of a work. Creating a copyrightable work is basically a business decision. It represents an investment which the author hopes to recoup later. It's no different from any of the other numerous matters in business. Want to form a corporation? There's a filing fee. Want to register for state or federal trademarks? Ditto. Patent applications? Ditto.
If an author is not willing to demonstrate confidence in himself, well, why should he expect something from me?
It's certainly not as though major authors are going to copyright every little thing they do either, but, already being established in the business world, it's not going to be surprising that they're better at it.
How would this be a bigger burden to society except to those who would take work they did not create and create a derivative and lock up the derivative.
Because that is beneficial to society. The underlying work is in the public domain -- anyone can use it for anything under the sun. That's the ideal of copyright. It's exactly what we want to have happen.
A derivative has been created. That's even better. We want them to be created too. And not only has the one derivative been created, but anyone in the world can create derivatives. How many tens of thousands of adaptations of Shakespeare are there?
Plus of course, the same issue would apply to the derivative -- fail to seek out protection, instead of expecting the world to owe you a living, and it too would be in the public domain.
With my proposal, people could make free use of unmarked works, even to the point of making money from them, they would just be prevented from locking up derivatives/etc.
Yes, but you're going too far. The idea behind copyright is that we want three equally important things: the creation of original works, the creation of derivative works, and for all works to be in the public domain fully and immediately.
In order to stimuate the first one of those goals, we 'spend' the immediate satisfaction of the second two. Not fully, but partially, and only for a span of time.
You're basically saying that where someone creates a derivative work of the kind discussed above, that they should effectively not be able to copyright it; if people can reproduce it, distribute it, prepare derivatives from it, etc. then it's effectively in the public domain.
I think that this would tend to taint those works as sources. You'd mostly but not fully satisfy the third interest, but you would not be fully satisfying the second. And remember, for the kinds of works we're talking about, the author never actually appears to have wanted a copyright, since they never tried to get one, and apparently would have created the work even if there was no copyright in it at all.
So you're incurring a burden on the public by not fully satisfying the third goal, and by not fully laying the ground for the second, and you're not doing so in order to bump up the first or the second. I don't know why you're doing it in fact! There's no important difference between different classes of authors -- authors are not important no matter who they are. Getting stuff produced and in the public domain is all that matters.
Basically, you're wasting public resources and I don't see how the public benefits more than they lose out. And that's the bottom line: the public has to come out ahead, when you add up the degree to which the three public interests I've listed are satisfied.
The best thing to do, I believe, and the easiest from a transactional approach, is to require strict formalities and to not allow for copyright protection if the formalities are not complied with.
Authors that only create works because they rely on the opportunity for profit that copyright affords them will follow the rules because it's important to the
I am not sure I agree with formally register, but at least place a formal notice on the work.
Registration wouldn't be difficult: fill out a form, mail off a few copies to the Library of Congress, and pay a small fee, chiefly to accomodate the costs associated with keeping it on file.
This is basically what we did until 1978, and we still had a lot of it until 1989.
Basically right now too much stuff is copyrighted. Your post up there, it's copyrighted. But why? I bet you would've written it even if it were not copyrighted. So it provides no incentive to creation to you there, and frankly to most things, e.g. internal paperwork, holiday photos, etc. It still incurs a cost on society though. When there is a cost and no benefit, I see something worth getting rid of. I don't see any balance, however.
Anyone who actually planned or even expected that their work was worth something would be able to file. But by getting most work in the public domain, it would clear out dead wood from the system, and ensure that people were not getting unjustified rewards that burdened the public.
We do basically the same thing already with patents: If your invention enters the public awareness, you have one year to file, or else the invention is in the public domain.
But it's Saturday. Most of us aren't at work.
You don't have to reproduce an entire work in order to infringe on the reproduction right.
For example, if I cut out all the parts of the Star Wars movies with Ewoks or Jar-Jar, and sold them, do you honestly think that I'm not going to get hammered for it?
In any event, taking a photo of a piece of art could be reproduction, or it could be a derivative, and is equally illegal in both events. So does it matter to any great extent? I suppose I should've been clearer, but still.
So, say you paint a painting and it's really really good. But you need money for heroin or a new Beowolf cluster so you sell it for $100. Buyer then issues 5000 limited edition prints and makes $10M. Is this fair?
Arguably, yes.
I think we ought to require people to formally register for copyrights, as opposed to granting them automatically and indiscriminately.
So ideally, if you don't want a copyright, if you're not willing to exert a small amount of effort to file for one, then why should you get one? It's clearly not worth it to you.
And if this results in the kind of scenario you describe, well, next time you'll know better. You'll either care enough to want a copyright, and take the trouble to get one, or you still won't care, and in that case, why should I care for you?
Think you can walk into any museum and (possibly covertly) take pictures of all the paintings by artists both dead and alive and sell the photos in book? Is this fair?
Setting aside the issue of photographing anything in a museum, which may just not like photography, yes it's perfectly fine to reproduce paintings for commercial purposes where those paintings are in the public domain. How on earth could it not be? That's a key point of copyright, to be able to do that.
That's okay, but not rotfl funny.
I've been using the handle since high school, actually. Didn't pick it out myself; I worked on our underground paper, and the editor at the time assigned it to me.
With regard to photographing houses, I meant the interior.
Maybe -- the only time I can recall anyone discussing the interior was the Yankee Candle case, and it just didn't get far. There've been some issues with photographing stuff, though, e.g. that Gap case, and the thing with, IIRC, the Cosby Show.
Plus there is the distinction between interior design as a whole, and the design of objects such as furniture (which may, but won't always be, utilitarian).
This is one of those areas where your best bet, really, is going to be fair use. And that's why it's important for fair use to be fuzzy; so that it can handle unexpected circumstances like this. Otherwise, this isn't the most well explored area of law.
Meh. I don't have a spell checker running in Firefox. I hardly think that /. posts are a good indicator of one's work product.
Sure. The earlier poster is looking at the wrong part of the law, basically.
17 USC 106 sets forth the basic exclusive rights of copyright holders. Among these are the rights of reproduction (106(1)) and preparation of derivatives (106(2)); which applies in this matter depends on the details of the photograph. In any event, they're part of the copyright.
The 106 rights generally pertain to any copyrighted work, regardless of what sort of work it is. You can't reproduce a movie without running into 106, and you can't reproduce a painting for the same reason.
106A adds some additional rights, without taking away any of the 106 rights. Instead of adding them for all copyright holders, it only adds them for a small subset, determined by, among other things, the kind of work the copyright pertains to.
So if you make a movie, then only 106 protects you. If you make a painting, then 106 protects you, and probably 106A will as well.
The earlier poster found that in some cases, the exclusive rights set up in 106A have exceptions. That's true. But those are exceptions only to the 106A rights, not to the 106 rights which are really the focus of this whole deal with people taking pictures of the sculpture.
So really, neither overrides the other. It's just that there are two parallel laws that likely apply to this sculpture. The mere fact that one is subject to an exception does not mean that the other one is; and what we need to be concerned with is not breaking any law, not merely breaking some of them.
By way of analogy, let's say that you had a car. And the state law said 1) that all cars needed a windshield, and 2) that all cars needed bumpers. Then, there was an exception that said that if the car was never made with a windshield, that it didn't need one. Well, some cars (those made with windshields) need both in order to comply with the law. Other cars (those not made with windshields) still need bumpers. In no event can you have a car without both.
Does this help any?
I was taught in Photography Class (by a professional photographer with her MFA) that if my pictures were taken in public and for "fine art," they couldn't touch me. She said that the only time somebody could sue me is if I used them for profit that was not fine art related.
I think she's talking about the publicity rights of people you photograph. Certainly the above statement doesn't hold water with regards to copyright.
From a copyright perspective, if you take a picture of a copyrighted work for non-commercial, fine art purposes (n.b. that fine art can be commercial, and in fact frequently is), and you don't have permission from the relevant copyright holder to do so, then you have likely infringed and may face damages as low as $200, or as high as $150,000.
You can allege the defense of fair use (see 17 USC 107), but be aware that this will not always work. The fair use test examines several factors that vary depending on the precise circumstances involved, so we can't make blanket statements as to what is and isn't fair. But I can see situations where the sort of photography you describe above could be fair, and also where it might not be.
Lastly, I am a lawyer, licensed to practice in Massachusetts, but I am not your lawyer. We do not have an attorney-client relationship, and I am not giving you legal advice. If you want legal advice, a privileged relationship, etc. then you should go to a lawyer licensed to practice in your jurisdiction who is willing to provide these things.
Reproduction or derivative, I should have said. Either way, it's infringing.
Can you even copyright a sculpture?
Yes. In fact, sculptural works are specifically enumerated in the list of copyrightable subject matter in 17 USC 102(a), which I have quoted here:
Maybe Levi's should copyright a pair of jeans so nobody can wear jeans anymore on TV.
There are some little exceptions to the list above (e.g. 105 prohibits some federal government works from being copyrighted). One of these is the utility doctrine, which would pretty likely prevent jeans as a whole from being copyrightable. Designs or pictures on the jeans, however, very well could be. It's by no means unknown for clothing manufacturers to use copyright to prevent people from making knock-offs.
Because federal law trumps state law, the city cannot authorize people to infringe a copyright held by a third party. If the city bought sufficient rights to the sculpture, then your suggestion might work. If not, then there's nothing they can do to authorize others.
You can't shoot commercially in ANY city park in Chicago.
Which likely means that since the city owns the park, they can control how it is used by others. You could of course photograph the park from elsewhere and be fine as far as that goes, but this doesn't address the copyright issue.
Sorry, I was being overly terse. Reproduction and the preparation of derivatives are both exclusive rights of the copyright holder. Taking a picture is going to be one or the other, depending on the specific details involved.
So no matter what, we can expect that there is prima face infringement of some kind going on when you take a picture of it.
Sorry Chicago, you spent public money so the place is owned by the taxpayers, not the artists.
No, that's irrelevant. The source of funds doesn't make something uncopyrightable.
This was a commissioned work, not art done alone by the artist and intended for sale.
Commissioned works typically are still copyrighted to the artist, regardless of the artist's intentions. Only in rare instances would it matter, and it's likely that this isn't one of them.