No two separate photos are exactly identical. Ideas are not
copyrightable. So if someone lost that one in court he had a idiot for
an attorney.
Someone could register a particular image as a trademark and keep you
from legally copying it or making a similar image I suppose, but he
would have to contimually use it as such to protect it. BTW, titles are
not copyrightable either.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
fra: "Lucas Rijnders" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Op Thu, 15 Dec 2005 14:47:55 +0100 schreef Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
interesting shot for Ansel Adams fans:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html
follow the last link for a related story.
Why would anyone want to copy Ansel Adams (or any other
photographer/photograph)?
Seems to me to be the ultimate in creative bankrupcy...
To learn from him? To honour him? To have a starting point for further
creative exploration? To have the print cheaply ;-)
In painting there _is_ a long tradition of copying/interpreting past
masterworks...
Interpreting and further developping of ideas, yes.
Pure copying is just one stept away from faking it. The laws, at least in
Europe, are clear in that a new piece must add something new in addition to a
simple copy.
DagT
