5 ms·
Effort is not commonly enough to validly claim copyright. A creative spark is required. So it depends on how rule oriented the photographers worked. E.g. Straig
by jerven 6y ago
Effort is not commonly enough to validly claim copyright. A creative spark is required.
So it depends on how rule oriented the photographers worked. E.g. Straight scan of painting hard to defend. Photo of 3d sculpture with interesting background is easier.
Usual exceptions are jurisdictions like the Netherlands and Belgium. Also not a lawyer.
- chrisseaton 6y ago> A creative spark is required. Right, and I'm pretty sure setting up a photography and lighting rig on a painting is enough in the UK to be a creative spark, under case law.
- hk__2 6y agoI don’t know for the UK, but under the US and French law this has nothing to do with creativity, and 2D reproduction don’t grant you any new right.
- chrisseaton 6y ago> I don’t know for the UK, but under the US and French law... Yes the idea that 2D reproductions don't grant new rights is indeed a Europeism, presumably from the French tradition and adopted into the US. The UK was sort of starting to adopt it as well before we left the EU. But the traditional view in the UK is that a photograph is a new copyrightable work. https://www.blakemorgan.co.uk/photographing-the-public-domain-eu-to-remove-copyright-protection-from-public-domain-art-images/ https://www.blakemorgan.co.uk/photographing-the-public-domai...
- kragen 6y agoUS copyright law derives from UK jurisprudence, not French, but US precedent has added a much greater requirement for originality, arguably starting with Feist.