Re: [Leica] Re: Copyright questions

["Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com>]

Seth writes:

> Ferrari has gone to court several times to
> enforce its ownership rights in the design
> of more than one highly prized Ferrari-Pininfarina
> design and to prevent fabricators from producing
> quite exact copies of real Ferrari automobiles
> (which some fabricators have done). And Ferrari
> has won.

For embodiments of the work substantially similar to the original (i.e., actual
cars that look like the original car).  But has Ferrari ever tried to sue or
prosecute over someone taking a _photo_ of one of their cars?  In theory, they
can, but have they?  Has anyone?

And yet this is the sort of thing we see happening in other domains, especially
that of architecture (although no longer in the U.S., since changes in copyright
law killed off that cash cow).

> This guy was putting real factory serial numbers
> on his replicas and selling them as true, original
> factory Ferraris. He went out of business and into jail.

Quite a difference from taking a photograph, though.

> On this whole subject, it seems to me that professional
> photographers should be a great deal less concerned
> about the remote possibility that someone may assert
> intellectual property rights inhibiting their access
> and freedom to photograph commercially someone else's
> creation than they are about protecting their own
> rights to their creative work product and their ability
> to pursue other who reproduce their work without
> compensation.

It depends on the circumstances.  If someone is making perfect copies of your
photograph and selling them for big money, yes, that may be a concern--but how
often does that happen?  If someone makes a copy for his own use (technically
illegal without authorization, in many jurisdictions), do you sue?  Worse yet,
do you prosecute?

Additionally, while I can see protecting against copies that are similar
embodiments of a work (a photo of a photo, a car like another car), I have a
problem with embodiments that are obviously different, such as a photo of a
building.  I have even more of a problem with it when the copyright is being
asserted that is only incidentally a creative work, and not primarily so (that
is, the creativity inherent in it is not the primary source of its utility or
interest for others).  For example, asserting copyright on a sculpture is much
easier to understand than asserting it on a building; the creativity of the
sculpture is of the essence of its interest and utility (and therefore of its
revenue-generating potential and overall worth), whereas the creativity of a
building or car's appearance has little effect on its utility and
revenue-generating potential.