Authored by: rcsteiner on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 02:19 PM EDT |
One difficulty with a photograph is it is an "all or nothing"
thing.
Hmmm. If this is true, then how can Google and other
similar search engines use thumbnails in search results?
Wasn't there a
recent case about that somewhere? --- -Rich Steiner >>>---> Mableton, GA
USA
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 03:55 PM EDT |
As an awarding architectural photographer myself I have sympathy where there is
true creative involvement. I actually carried a camera on my shoulder for about
15 years to document my world. I spent a lot of time in dark rooms.
I beleive photographs are subject to copyright and should be subject to the
same kinds of fair use applied to other forms of expression. Photographs merely
recording commonplace scenes or events should be accorded less protection than
carefully selected and produced images.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jplatt39 on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 05:01 PM EDT |
When people make the argument that facial likenesses or even gestures in
photographs are copyrightable they are ignoring that those are not the result
of the photographer's acts. Sony created a fake photo for their Clarke
Rockefeller movie which echoed but didn't copy a real photograph they were
clearly alluding to and that was ruled fair use. So were thumbnails in a book
about psychedelic posters from the Fillmore -- they were drawing attention to
the imagery. Yes in both there are copyrightable elements but in the
Rockefeller photo the father/daughter gesture was not one of them. Thank
heaven. What should be copyrightable are the formal elements -- the patterns of
light and dark.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|