3 ms·
"so far as they are representatives of original intellectual conceptions of the author." "representatives of original intellectual conceptions"? Wouldn't that
by pmoriarty 4y ago
"so far as they are representatives of original intellectual conceptions of the author."
"representatives of original intellectual conceptions"?
Wouldn't that only to apply to photos made with some preconceived idea of what you wanted the photo to look like?
What about spontaneous, "point and shoot" photos? What about a photo that I take with my eyes closed, without intent? And how original is your typical family snapshot or wedding photo? They're about as generic and unoriginal as you can get, yet there's no doubt they're copyrightable.
- adgjlsfhk1 4y agopoint and shoot is almost certainly copyrighted. eyes closed might not be, (I kind of doubt there's case law here). the bar for originally is pretty low for copyright but it's not zero.
- gwd 4y agoWhat if someone who's blind just randomly pulls out a camera and takes some snaps (without knowing anything about what might be going on). Do they get a copyright on their photos?
- adgjlsfhk1 4y agoprobably not
- NexRebular 4y agoThen Lomography can't be copyrightable, especially if "shooting from the hip" (rule #4)? [1] [1] https://www.lomography.com/about/the-ten-golden-rules https://www.lomography.com/about/the-ten-golden-rules
- zamnos 4y agoInterestingly is the case of a monkey taking a selfie. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disp...