4 ms·
It'll end up being enforced on publication, I'd guess. So if you photograph an object and publish the picture, someone can come after you for money. Or, in this
by roywiggins 11y ago
It'll end up being enforced on publication, I'd guess. So if you photograph an object and publish the picture, someone can come after you for money. Or, in this case, if you published a book last year, they can sue you for distributing it. Which is insane, but that's what you get with retroactive copyright extensions.
Nobody actually cares whether you took the photograph, it's whether you published it.
- andreasklinger 11y agoperfect for celebrities
- dogma1138 11y agoWell the question is then does it cover all photographs or only those in which the item is the subject. E.g model on a chair is ok chair on its own is not. Also what makes an item a classical designer item? Do ikea chairs count as designer goods now since they come with an image stock photo of some middle age white guy with a Nordic name?
- simonh 11y agoThe mention of 'designer' objects is a distraction. It's about any object for which the design is protected by copyright.
- blowski 11y agoNo it's not, it's about "industrially exploited artistic works". Industrially exploited means 'more than 50 copies produced'. Artistic is left to the court to decide on a case-by-case basis. The design of an Apple laptop or a Fisher Price toy phone is copyrighted, but it's very unlikely to be considered an 'artistic work'.
- Olap84 11y agoBut when you can request a copy of a cctv video, does that not become publishing? Seems very wooly to me.
- knodi123 11y agoI would imagine not, any more than showing your family photos to a neighbor would count as publishing them.
- pc86 11y agoPresumably any sort of judicial order or action overrides copyright. You can't get out of a mug shot if you're arrested because you happen to be wearing an Armani shirt.