Igor PDML-StR wrote: >Mark: thanks, that's an interesting article. > >Bob: I don't know how it works on your side of the pond, but in the US, >sculptures in a photo MAY BE and often ARE covered by copyright. >There have been several cases in the past decade or so. >See e.g. this case: >http://www.sculpture.org/documents/scmag05/may_05/webspecs/grant.shtml >It looks like it is different in Canada: >http://www.photoattorney.com/update-on-lawsuit-against-photographer-for-photo-of-sculpture/ > >If you read that second reference above, you'll see that you can >photograph and paint (on your own media! ;-) ) public buildings without >copyright infringements. > >As for clothes, I know much less about that area. >There is much lower level of copyright protection in the fashion design >(if at all). You can read e.g. this document: >http://copyright.gov/docs/regstat072706.html
Also, in the case of the Mike Tyson tattoo, the issue is Trademark rather than copyright, so different laws apply. Overall the advice given in the article seems pretty sensible. In the U.S, at least, the copyright owner can't sue unless the copyright has been registered with the copyright office (and within 90 days of "publication", which would mean when it appeared on the person on whom it was applied). -- Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia www.robertstech.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
