RE: [Leica] Re: Copyright questions

["Steve Unsworth" <mail@steveunsworth.co.uk>]

I'm not going to continue this thread after this message, life is too short.
However I will point out that you said 'the creativity of a building or
car's _appearance_ has little effect on its utility and revenue-generating
potential.' You were describing a building's appearance not its original
function or reason for being built.

Steve
- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Mxsmanic
Sent: 17 June 2001 13:39
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Copyright questions


Steve Unsworth writes:

> Just in Paris, Eiffel tower, Notre Dame, many
> people visit these places because of the
> architectural statement they make.

Sure, but neither structure was intended primarily as a pretty image.  In
other
words, the Eiffel Tower was built to be the highest structure in the world,
and
Notre-Dame was built to serve as a place of worship.  Their interest as pure
images, if any, is very accessory to their primary purpose.

> Would people queue to go up the Eiffel tower
> if it were a 10 metre high plain brick building?

Turn this around:  If the Eiffel Tower were just a picture, would anyone be
able
to go up inside of it at all?  In other words, the Eiffel Tower is primarily
a
structure that people enter and use, not an image.

There comes a point when something passes from the domain of a creative work
(protected by copyright) into the domain of a useful product (protected by a
patent), or still again into the domain of an important symbol (protected by
a
trademark).  There is a lot of overlap, but it seems extreme to me that an
architect--who is paid primarily to build useful structures--should assert
copyright protection over the mere _image_ of what he has constructed.  And
this
can be tested simply:  Replace the appearance of the structure with some
other
appearance and see if it fulfills the same function--the answer is yes.  Now
replace the structure with something else, leaving only a similar
appearance,
and see if it fulfills the same function--the answer is no.  Therefore
appearance is not of the essence of the architect's work, no matter how much
he
might like to believe otherwise.  Apparently U.S. legislators agree, because
they removed copyright protection of the mere _image_ of an architectural
work
explicitly in statute.

> If you believe that the answer is no, then surely
> you accept that the building's appearance has
> an effect on its revenue generating potential.

Both of the buildings you name would be just as famous, and just as capable
of
generating revenue, even if their appearances were quite different.  People
go
to the Eiffel Tower because it is famous and tall and provides a good view;
this
would still be true even if it looked like a giant soup can.  Similarly,
people
visit Notre-Dame because of its historical importance as a religious
edifice;
and this would still be true even if it looked like a giant breadbox.
Indeed,
Notre-Dame and the Pompidou Center (the one with all the pipes on the
outside)
get many visitors, and for reasons that are more similar than different,
even
though they look nothing at all like each other.