Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/06/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Jim Brick writes: > To make a long story short, Chuck won and the > panel of judges stated that Chuck was in no way > infringing upon the R&R HOF trademark or copyright > and that further legal avenues pursued by the > R&R HOF would be pointless. It is interesting to note that a relatively recent change in U.S. copyright law _explicitly_ prohibits architects from suing photographers for taking (and selling) pictures of their buildings. In other words, in the U.S., it is no longer possible for an architect to sue a photographer for copyright infringement because the photographer takes a picture of a building the architect designed without the architect's authorization and then sells it. The copyright law now explicitly states that this is _not_ infringement. I suspect this change was made as a result of widespread abuse of copyright law by architects; I consider it a change for the better. Unfortunately, this abuse is still widespread in other jurisdictions. > The real question is, does US copyright law > protect foreign produced and owned works? Yes, to a certain extent, if that country also provides copyright protection for U.S. works, and subject to a number of caveats that only lawyers seem to be able to figure out (and sometimes even they cannot correctly guess what a court will decide).