Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/06/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Kip Babington writes: > ... if I buy a sculpture from somebody, what > do I buy, copyright-wise, as against the > original sculptor (or, perhaps, some intermediate > owner who bought more than I did and didn't > pass all of it along?) You don't buy anything in terms of copyright. The sculptor still holds the copyright and all the intellectual-property rights to the sculpture. You just bought the physical sculpture, which isn't the same thing. It's rather like buying software: You don't actually buy a copyright to the software, you just buy a license to use it, along with a copy that you can use to fulfill the terms of that license. > In the original question, it was noted that > the sculpture was owned by a private party who > gave permission for the photograph. Could that owner > make his own photos of the sculpture and sell them? No, in most jurisdictions. He owns the sculpture as a physical object, but unless he also obtained other rights in his purchase, he does not own the right to reproduce the sculpture (with photos or otherwise). > If not, why not? Because the intellectual property rights that apply to a sculpture are independent of the physical object of the sculpture itself, and they can be negotiated independently. Selling or renting one doesn't necessarily have any effect on the other. > Or could he use the sculpture in a business > that he owns? Maybe put it out in front of his > office building and use a photo of the building (and > sculpture) in advertising for his company? Yes, he could normally do that, because (1) buying the sculpture gives him an implicit license to display it (usually), and (2) a photo of a building only includes the sculpture as an accessory (usually) and so would not be considered infringement on the sculpture copyright (usually). Note that "usually" appears everywhere here, because no two cases are alike. > But how does that apply to a work of sculpture? Non-commercial use would mean use that generates no money. Displaying it in front of the building generates no revenue; photographing it and selling postcards of it does. So the former would be non-commercial use, and the latter would be commercial use. Usually. > I suppose the sculptor could attach a small brass > plate to an inconspicuous part of the work, setting out > the limits of use, but absent that . . . Absent that or some other explicit grant of rights, the sculptor retains them all, by default.