Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodstar
This case arises in a commercial context. Party A came up with a novel creation (the concept of the red bus against a black and white rendition of the UK Houses of Parliament), and Party B copied it to gain a substantial commercial advantage.
This is to be distinguished from the images taken by amateur astrophotographers, which depict common celestial objects, which may look nice, but which are of no real commercial value. No one is going to spend $100,000+ in legal fees to argue over your right to take an image of M42. No hysteria is required.
Copyright actually attaches to any artistic work we create. So the image you took last night of NGC1365 is automatically your copyrighted work. In that instance, it is the actual image you have taken, and not the subject matter of the image that matters. No one is allowed to copy your image, and reproduce it without your permission, and rightly so. How would you feel if I copied your image, gathered by you using skills developed over many years of practice, and then I posted it as mine? I imagine you would be pretty unhappy. And rightly so.
|
Here's a challenge for the lawyer in the group...
http://www.google.com/search?pws=0&q...&um=1&tbm=isch
who "owns" the "artistic" design for these images? The first guy who shot the plane in front of the moon or the person who commercialized it first?
And if Qantas were to use Chris' image would China Airlines be banned from using a later "artistically similar" image?
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1009...thomas_big.jpg
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/image...5_reuplane.jpg
Also, if I combined a shot of the moon and an airplane in Photoshop, am I "creating" an artistic impression that now does not violate copyright because I created it versus photographers who shoots "the real thing"? Or... if I "created it" (photoshop) long before anyone else shot the real thing, are they infringing on my copyright?
Food for thought...
OIC!