First, I am not a lawyer (and definitely not an expert in UK law), but
this kind of discussion always attracts my attention, as it sometimes
reveals the amount of absurdity hidden in most laws.
Alan claims that:
I am a work of artistic craftsmanship, irrespective of artistic quality.
A photo of me is a derivative work.
Could you provide any reference in laws which mentions the term
"derivative work"? Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find anything even
vaguely resembling a definition of what can be classified as "derivative
work".
However, let's ignore the doubts of whether you are a copyrighted work or
not for a while and have a look at parts 30 and 31 of CDP Act 1988
(http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_4.htm#mdiv31):
(3) No acknowledgement is required in connection with the reporting of
current events by means of a sound recording, film, broadcast or cable
programme.
(1) Copyright in a work is not infringed by its incidental inclusion
in an artistic work, sound recording, film, broadcast or cable programme.
(2) Nor is the copyright infringed by the issue to the public of
copies, or the playing, showing, broadcasting or inclusion in a cable
programme service, of anything whose making was, by virtue of subsection
(1), not an infringement of the copyright.
So, if I'm reading it correctly, even if you -were- a copyrighted work,
you could be photographed, as long as the photos would be taken
incidentally. In other words, if I was going to take a photo of the street
and you were walking through it, just by chance, it wouldn't be an
infringement. On the other hand, if I was trying to photograph -you-, this
exception wouldn't apply. Also, if you get shown in the TV newsflash, it's
okay...
In fact, part 32 seems even more funny:
(3) Copyright is not infringed by anything done for the purposes of an
examination by way of setting the questions, communicating the questions
to the candidates or answering the questions.
So, if I was going to make an exam related to Alan, I could take as many
photos of him as I want, right? ;-)
<absurd>
If we wanted to take it to absurdum (under the assumption that one owns
the copyright to his or her outfit), Scotland Yard would not be permitted
to make a photo of a criminal and send it to police stations around the
country without infringing the criminal's copyright. Moreover, assuming
that evidence obtained through illegal means cannot be used in the court,
they also wouldn't be allowed to take any pictures at the crime scene of a
homicide (at least for the next 20 years, as it would infringe the
victim's rights) and use them to prove the guilt of the suspect.
</absurd>
Okay, enough ranting :-)
Peter
--
[Name] Peter Kosinar [Quote] 2B | ~2B = exp(i*PI) [ICQ] 134813278
_______________________________________________
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.
