5 ms·

Under U.S. copyright law, the person who creates a work is the copyright owner. So if a photographer takes a picture of an artwork, they own the rights to their

by nemo 3y ago

Under U.S. copyright law, the person who creates a work is the copyright owner. So if a photographer takes a picture of an artwork, they own the rights to their image. Read more here: https://www.copyright.gov/engage/visual-artists/ https://www.copyright.gov/engage/visual-artists/

autoexec 3y ago
A photo of a public domain work doesn't generally count as "creating a work". Especially not when there's nothing artistic added or any additional context to it. If I just take a photo of an artwork that's already in the public domain it is essentially little more than a reproduction.
sgentle 3y ago
You might find it helpful to refer to the Copyright Office's Compendium, which covers copyright law specifics in more detail. It's big, but quite approachable. Chapter 300 covers copyrightability in general: https://copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-authorship.pdf https://copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-auth... > 313.4(A): A work that is a mere copy of another work of authorship is not copyrightable. The Office cannot register a work that has been merely copied from another work of authorship without any additional original authorship. [...] Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191, 195 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) ("exact photographic copies of public domain works of art would not be copyrightable under United States law because they are not original"). Chapter 900 covers visual art specifically and goes into more detail on the copyrightability of photographs: https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap900/ch900-visual-art.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap900/ch900-visual-art.pdf > 909.3(A): [...] A photograph that is merely a "slavish copy" of a painting, drawing, or other public domain or copyrighted work is not eligible for registration. The registration specialist will refuse a claim if it is clear that the photographer merely used the camera to copy the source work without adding any creative expression to the photo. Similarly, merely scanning and digitizing existing works does not contain a sufficient amount of creativity to warrant copyright protection.
mediumsmart 3y ago
But the photo needs to be taken at a weird angle and it helps to place a live squirrel somewhere on the artwork.
inglor_cz 3y ago
Copyright only protects creative works, where the author's artistic intent can be distinguished. Faithful reproductions of non-copyrighted two-dimensional work are considered non-copyrightable, because nothing of artistic value is added in the process. (There is a lot of mechanical work around photos, but mechanical work doesn't enjoy copyright.)
- ghaff 3y ago
  Right. Just because something is a lot of work ("sweat of the brow"), doesn't make it copyrightable in the US. Feist is one of the main cases in thiss area as I understand it.

by nemo 3y ago

autoexec 3y ago

A photo of a public domain work doesn't generally count as "creating a work". Especially not when there's nothing artistic added or any additional context to it. If I just take a photo of an artwork that's already in the public domain it is essentially little more than a reproduction.

sgentle 3y ago

You might find it helpful to refer to the Copyright Office's Compendium, which covers copyright law specifics in more detail. It's big, but quite approachable. Chapter 300 covers copyrightability in general: https://copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-authorship.pdf https://copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-auth... > 313.4(A): A work that is a mere copy of another work of authorship is not copyrightable. The Office cannot register a work that has been merely copied from another work of authorship without any additional original authorship. [...] Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191, 195 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) ("exact photographic copies of public domain works of art would not be copyrightable under United States law because they are not original"). Chapter 900 covers visual art specifically and goes into more detail on the copyrightability of photographs: https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap900/ch900-visual-art.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap900/ch900-visual-art.pdf > 909.3(A): [...] A photograph that is merely a "slavish copy" of a painting, drawing, or other public domain or copyrighted work is not eligible for registration. The registration specialist will refuse a claim if it is clear that the photographer merely used the camera to copy the source work without adding any creative expression to the photo. Similarly, merely scanning and digitizing existing works does not contain a sufficient amount of creativity to warrant copyright protection.

mediumsmart 3y ago

But the photo needs to be taken at a weird angle and it helps to place a live squirrel somewhere on the artwork.

inglor_cz 3y ago

Copyright only protects creative works, where the author's artistic intent can be distinguished. Faithful reproductions of non-copyrighted two-dimensional work are considered non-copyrightable, because nothing of artistic value is added in the process. (There is a lot of mechanical work around photos, but mechanical work doesn't enjoy copyright.)

ghaff 3y ago
Right. Just because something is a lot of work ("sweat of the brow"), doesn't make it copyrightable in the US. Feist is one of the main cases in thiss area as I understand it.