Is A Photograph A Derivative Work Of The Object In The Photo?

from the you-would-hope-not dept

There's an interesting discussion going on over at William Patry's blog, questioning whether or not a photograph should be considered a "derivative work" of the object or objects in the photo. The courts appear to be somewhat split on this. The importance of this concerns whether or not the photograph itself can be covered by copyright -- and also whether or not the photograph can be considered infringement itself. If the photo is considered an unauthorized derivative work, then it's entirely possible that whoever holds the copyright on the object in the photo could claim that the photo itself is infringing. Remember, in the past there's been some concern about the legality of photographing copyrighted sculptures. A derivative work is supposed to be for something that "recast, transformed, or adapted" the original work, and is normally used for something like a translation of copyrighted material. However, does a photograph really recast, transform or adapt the object? Or is it an entirely separate work?
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, derivative works, photographs, william patry


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Craig, 13 Feb 2008 @ 9:51pm

    This madness must stop

    Holy crap...what a Pandora's Box this is going to be unless we take a firm line now and shut down infringement claims along these lines.

    I'm reminded of the time I went to take a photo with my camera of a giant painting in an art museum. One of the docents came over to tell me that was not permitted. I was flabbergasted. Did she really think a grainy VGA image was a reasonable substitute for a massive painting?

    If this type of "derivative work" claim moves forward, it will utterly destroy any type of urban photography, as nearly everything can have some copyright claim made upon it. For example, you couldn't have any signage or decoration or architecture in your photo that is possibly covered by copyright. That means no logos of any kind. What on earth would we do, then?

    Just ridiculous.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Elle, 14 Feb 2008 @ 7:21am

      Re: This madness must stop

      Re: the no photography rule in museums. There is another reason the docents and other official types at the museum don't want anyone to photograph the art. It turns out that the flash from the camera can damage the artwork. One of the reasons why most museums use indirect sunlight or no sunlight at all is due to certain wavelengths of light (like UV) damaging the pigments in paintings (sort of like what happens to red and black upholstery in a car in Florida, the colors fade). I learned about this in my art appreciation and anthropology classes. The flashes on cameras also damage old bones dug out of the ground.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Judy, 14 Feb 2008 @ 12:47pm

      Re: This madness must stop

      Craig, I hate to get non-legalistic on you ( :-) ), but are you sure the docent didn't stop you because you were using a flash? My understanding is that light has to be managed very carefully to avoid having the painting fade.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      acsenray, 12 Mar 2020 @ 6:43pm

      Re: This madness must stop

      The Copyright Act has a specific exemption for architectural photographs. There is no exemption for photographing a painting.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    John, 13 Feb 2008 @ 10:00pm

    Thumbnail?

    Wouldn't this be a thumbnail? A paintings resolution is determined by the number of molecules that comprise the paint. Since the digital image of it will have an insanely smaller resolution, isn't it just a thumbnail? And as far as the picture of a statue goes, the statue is a representation of a symbol and the importance of the statue is based on who made the statue, what value society places on the symbol being represented and the quality of the statue's representation of the symbol. If a picture is taken, the ONLY thing that the picture and the statue have in common are the symbol. Or am I just an idiot?

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Wesha, 13 Feb 2008 @ 10:03pm

    > However, does a photograph really recast, transform
    > or adapt the object?

    It transforms the object from 3D to 2D. That's enough already.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    waferthinmint, 13 Feb 2008 @ 10:38pm

    settled a long time ago in opposite direction

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Koons

    btw you can't photo art in museums because flash photography degrades the art. too many asshats have abused the "no flash" rule, so now it is usually "no cameras"

    there is also a worry for some paintings that brush strokes could be copied and works counterfeited.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      LB, 14 Feb 2008 @ 4:46am

      Re: settled a long time ago in opposite direction

      Your comment about banning photos of art in museums will cause the work to be copied doesn't hold up. I've seen art students with paper and pencils coping paintings, so I feel the really issue of no photos is the fact museums make money on the copies they sell in the gift shops.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        MooCow, 14 Feb 2008 @ 10:15am

        Re: Re: settled a long time ago in opposite direct

        I've seen the art students too. In the Louvre of all places! Copyright! Heathens! Copyright!

        And in some cases there really is a "no photos because of the gift shop" policy. You can't take photos in the Sistine Chapel because Fujifilm has the photography contract for the fancy book in the Vatican Gift Shop. Camera flash is definitely not the issue, as the flash diffuses to the point of non-effectiveness (at least for people without high powered flash units) by the time it reaches the ceiling 30-ish ft above you.

        But in other cases, camera flash does harm some paintings. It's a complex "equation" based on what the painting is on, the paints used, age, type of flash, and flash strength. It's just that most curators won't "do the math" and figure out which paintings are at risk, and assume all are at risk.

        link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Feb 2008 @ 10:45pm

    What the first 3 said.

    1) This is a stupid-ugly problem.

    2) A picture of a sculpture is like a degraded quality copy because

    3) a picture (currently) transforms the 3D sculpture into a 2D image.

    Of course for 3, what if it's a painting? Oh well that's right, the camera resolution is lower than reality (currently).


    I hate copyright law now. People do dumb shit like complain that someone took a picture of their sculpture and wanted to show it to people. Nothing like creating art for the sake of not showing it to anybody.

    Why isn't it in this guy's basement or destroyed again?

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    WesternWheel, 13 Feb 2008 @ 11:13pm

    Hold on here

    The no Photo rules in museums came about because many of the works were "on loan", and thus still private property. It was a security issue. I gleaned this as an art student living in London and speaking with the staff at the V & A. Also, it is a security measure for museums themselves: people not necessarily photographing art, but the area surrounding the art for future clandestine (theft) activities.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Paul, 14 Feb 2008 @ 1:19am

    Can of Worms

    This would have to be an incredibly detailed law.

    Think of all the different things you take pictures of that are covered by some form of copyright.

    Cars, Paintings, Buildings, Products, Sculptures, Books.

    Where do you draw the line?

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Evostick, 14 Feb 2008 @ 2:33am

    Common

    Paparazzi Agencies use photos of photos to get around copywrite issues.

    Dunno how legal it is, but they seem to think it is.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Michael Evans, 14 Feb 2008 @ 5:02am

    Imagine this world...

    They have won.

    All sight, all sound,all thought; controlled, protected.
    So that we may only see, hear, and think what others want us to.
    So that learning its self stops...

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Wolfger, 14 Feb 2008 @ 5:03am

    You wouldn't steal a purse, would you?

    Photography is stealing. Or so some *AA group will be happy to tell you, I'm sure.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2008 @ 5:39am

    Once again if you knew anything about copyright you would know the answer. I would tell you the answer, but all of your nerdy read (yes, that includes you mike) would shout me down.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      ehrichweiss, 14 Feb 2008 @ 7:04am

      Re:

      Yeah, cause nothing says

      "I know more than you"

      than

      "but I'm not gonna tell you poo-poo heads"

      link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Dan, 14 Feb 2008 @ 5:41am

    Who holds the copyrights on the Washington Monument (or any other national monument)? Who holds the copyright on the Grand Canyon (or any other national park)? If an amateur or professional photographer takes a picture of things like these ("Here kids stand in front of Lincoln so I can get this picture") Now someone has to get money? Pulllease.

    This is the same item related to the Egyptian claim of rights over use of imagery of the pyramids. Next thing "they" will be making us pay for natural landscapes...I have hundreds of pictures of the Grand Tetons. Do I have to send a check to .... Jackson Hole, Jackson County, USFS, Mother Nature? I tell ya... we are so lost.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2008 @ 6:02am

    I think you'll find a lot of that issue relates to commercial use of the images; you can take family snaps or vacation photos, you just can't use them for resale. I don't know all of the copyright "thing" in the US of course, but I know at least one large park area requires professional photographers to buy a license if they intend to resell the photos taken there.

    It is unlikely (but possible) that family or vacation photos would cause much in the way of infringements in the mind of even those writing the copyright regs.

    Copyright law is already confusing to most.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2008 @ 3:04pm

      Re:

      I don't know all of the copyright "thing" in the US of course,...

      Obviously. Copyright protection in the US is not limited to commercial use.

      link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Gracey, 14 Feb 2008 @ 6:03am

    okay, that's too weird...I made a comment that appears to have been made an anonymous coward? How'd that happe?

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    thecaptain, 14 Feb 2008 @ 6:08am

    Okay...you're all messing with me right?

    right???

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    SomeGuy, 14 Feb 2008 @ 6:10am

    A bit torn

    I'm usually right there with you, Mike, but I have to say that I'm a little torn on this bit here. I mean, obviously, any picture that I (or anyone else similarly unskilled) take shouldn't be considered a derivative work, because it's just a picture (and from past experiences, probably a pretty bad one).

    But some photographers are REALLY GOOD and can do some amazing things with photos; it's real ART. Now, I don't know if that's necessarily a derivative work (I would probably argue it's a completely new work in itself, the result of said Photographer's skill and talent), but I don't think it's unreasonable to say that those (high-quality) photos should be any less protected than a painting or a sculpture.

    I'm not exactly sure what i'm getting at here.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    GetLogical, 14 Feb 2008 @ 6:37am

    A Solution

    Following this line of absurdity, I would argue that my own memory of seeing a copyrighted object ought to be considered as a copyright violation. After all, I have a pretty good visual memory, so don't I carry around an image of the original object in my head?

    The solution, then, would be to mandate that anyone who pursues such ludicrous infringement suits ought to fully protect their copyrighted material by having no one view or refer to it at all in any form, live or "Memorex".

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2008 @ 6:39am

    There is no copyright on The Statue of Liberty or the Empire State Building. How could you violate someone's copyright on it by taking a picture if there isn't a copyright on it?

    That being said, there are tribes in Africa that will kill you if you take a picture of them (as they believe that the camera steals their soul) so maybe working this out in a courtroom is a better option.

    That being said, the whole topic is based on a blog discussion. Doesn't mean that anything will ever come of it.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2008 @ 6:59am

      Re:

      Ok, yes, there's no copyright on the Statue of Liberty. A+ for the Strawman. But let's pretend like you took a picture of something that WAS copyrighted -- I don't care what -- then what are the ramifications?

      link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Overcast, 14 Feb 2008 @ 6:44am

    They need a 'catch all' law - of course, that would make too much sense... But something like - once a work has been around for X number of years - it's public domain, period.

    This could apply to music, art, sculpture, etc..

    At least it would clear up some issues and be a step in the right direction.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Duodave, 14 Feb 2008 @ 7:59am

    As long as it's considered an art form

    As long as photography itself is considered an art form, photographs should be considered derivative, owned by the photographer. Anything else would be too complex to manage.

    Also, any attempt to control photography in this way would restrict the first ammendment.

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    bored, 14 Feb 2008 @ 8:43am

    reply

    WOW, now we get the RIAA equivalent for photography. F'n AssHat's

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2008 @ 3:03pm

    Photocopy

    What about photocopies?

    link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Feb 2008 @ 6:27pm

    In public, I will take a photo of what ever I want.
    Try and stop me asshats.

    link to this | view in chronology ]


Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.