On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Paul Munday wrote: > On Mon, 2006-12-04 at 21:55 +0000, Drsolly wrote: > > On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Lubomir Kundrak wrote: > > > > > On Po, 2006-12-04 at 11:11 +0000, Drsolly wrote: > > > > In my case, there's the issue of copyright. As the owner and creator of > > > > my > > > > face and body shape, I claim intellectual property in it, and they would > > > > have to negotiate a licence to use it or any deriative work based on > > > > it, > > > > such as a picture of me. > > > > > > Oh, you created yourself? Nice :) > > > > Well, partly. Especially the outward appearance, which is what a photogaph > > copies. > > > > For example, the style of my hair, the presence/absence of a mustache and > > beard, the length of my eyebrows, and, especially, the size of my stomach. > > In addition, there's the clothes that I choose to wear (including my hat). > > It all adds up to a "work of creation", possibly some people might even > > call it a "work of art" (even an ugly object can be a work of art) in > > which the overall appearance is mostly my own work (including elements > > that I have paid other people to create). > > UK copyright law seem to think otherwise, > Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 sez: > Copyright is a property right which subsists in accordance with this > Part in the following descriptions of work > (a) original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works, > (b) sound recordings, films, broadcasts or cable programmes, > and > (c) the typographical arrangement of published editions. > and: > artistic work" means > (a) a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, > irrespective of artistic quality, > (b) a work of architecture being a building or a model for a > building, or > (c) a work of artistic craftsmanship.
I am a work of artistic craftsmanship, irrespective of artistic quality. > But even if you were covered that would stop people making themselves > look like you, not taking a photo. A photo of me is a derivative work. > The consensus amoung photographers (in the UK at least) seems to be that > you need a model release form if someone is the main (and deliberate) > subject, not if they happen just to be there e.g. part of a crowd or a > bystander. Copyright subsists with the person taking the photo. > > > > You cannot simply copy someone else's intellectual property without > > their permission. > > Copy is the operative word. Taking a photo can be a new work. It's a derivative work. You wouldn't be able to make the photo, unless you had me in your viewfinder. _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
