Re: [Leica] Re: Copyright questions

[Andrew Schroter <schroter@optonline.net>]

Would you consider a 1966 Mustang purely as a tool.  I assert that for
certain objects, as the result of casual agreement created over time, some
objects may make the transition from a tool to be primarily considered a
work of art.

> Austin Franklin writes:
>
> > That is not the same.
>
> Actually, it is.  Both the sculpture and the photo are fixations of a
creative
> work in a tangible medium.  Copyright controls the making of such
embodiments of
> a creative work.  Taking a photograph is one form of such an embodiment,
so
> taking a picture is generally assimilated with making a copy of a work.
The
> actual medium used is typically not relevant, particularly for works of
purely
> artistic value.
>
> > Replace photograph (sculpture) with automobile.
>
> An automobile is a tool, not an embodiment of a purely creative work, and
as
> such, copyright usually is not asserted or enforced for automobiles
(although,
> in theory, the designer of the automobile has a copyright on the design).
>
> > Can you use pictures of YOUR car in a magazine,
> > of course.  Can you use pictures of YOUR car in
> > an advertisement, of course.
>
> Not necessarily.  It depends on how central the make and model of car is
to the
> use of the image.  You might need a release for certain uses, although
this is
> pretty rare for something like a car.
>
> > Why do you think a sculpture is any more a work
> > of art than a car is?
>
> The thing is, a sculpture is a work of art, but not really anything else.
A
> car, in contrast, is a tool first, and a work of art only second or third
or
> beyond.  So copyright is important for sculpture, and far less so for a
car.
> The revenue potential of a sculpture depends exclusively upon having
control of
> the creative essence of the work, whereas the revenue potential of a car
depends
> mostly on its utility as transportation.
>
> > If photographers had to get permission to use
> > EVERYTHING used as props, there would be no
> > photographs.
>
> That's true, and that's why there is such a large gray area in this
domain.
> That is also why releases are not always necessary in practice.  However,
taking
> a photo of a scupture alone serves little other purpose than to make a
copy of
> the sculpture, so to speak, and so any commercial use of that photo is
very
> likely to require a release.
>
> > Pens, watches, benches, cars, buildings,
> > cameras...trinkets on a desk....
>
> The same rules potentially apply to all of these, but real-world practices
> differ.
>