|
On 21/12/2010 2:04 PM, Ian Sergeant wrote: Having just completed my Certificate IV photography course, I can assure you that any photo taken for private purposes is immediately copyright to the photographer. Photos taken for commercial purposes are also copyright, but usually to the person/organisation that commissioned the work. Even then, the photographer retains "moral copyright", i.e., the right to be credited if the photo is published. It's all specifically covered in the Copyright Act. Satellite photos would probably be copyright to the organisation that commissioned the photos, because the Copyright Act makes no distinction as to what type of camera or how it is operated.On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Nick Hocking <[email protected]> wrote:Since taking a photo of something entails little or no "independent intellectual effort",On 21 December 2010 13:08, Steve Bennett <[email protected]> wrote:In what context? Obviously artistic photography is copyrightable.And even non-artistic photography... However, this case draws a real distinction between the human process of originality, and an automated process according to a set of rules. I've no doubt that if I take a photo out of an aeroplane window that copyright subsists in that photo. However, it would be interesting to see what the courts would now make of a satellite taking photos automatically according to a standard process of the earths surface. Ian. Richard C. |
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
