Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,953   Posts: 1,558,017   Online: 1122
      
Page 6 of 17 FirstFirst 12345678910111216 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 168
  1. #51
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,613
    Images
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by Diapositivo View Post
    in Canada just like in any other place every building is copyrighted
    The Berne Convention Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act of 1990 does give some copyright protection to buildings but this is only to prevent an identical (or very similar) structure from being built and does not restrict photography of a building.

    ``Sec. 120. Scope of Exclusive Rights in Architectural Works

    ``(a) PICTORIAL REPRESENTATIONS PERMITTED.— The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.
    To take it a step further, a photograph of a building is not a copy of a building. Only another building can be a copy of an existing building.


    Steve.
    Last edited by Steve Smith; 07-12-2011 at 07:06 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

  2. #52
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    Steve, that's exactly what I said in my post. You quoted only the first sentence. Every building is copyrighted, not just certain buildings. Architects were born equal

    When a building is "copyrighted" it means that you cannot make another building like that, it doesn't mean you cannot photograph it, that's what I wrote in post #49.
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  3. #53
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,613
    Images
    122
    Then we agree!

    As the Berne Convention Act states that only another building can infringe the copyright of another building, I wonder how far we can take that logic.

    i.e. can you only infringe the copyright of a statue by making another statue? A flat piece of paper with the picture of a statue on it is not really a copy of the 3D original.

    What about an oil painting? Is a photograph of it a copy which can be an infringement or does it have to be another oil painting in order to infringe the original's copyright?


    Steve.
    Last edited by Steve Smith; 07-12-2011 at 07:54 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

  4. #54
    sly
    sly is offline
    sly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Nanaimo
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,367
    Images
    219
    Some folks demanding photos not be taken might be in hiding (from the law, an abusive ex, etc.), some may be mentally unbalanced, some may just be self-important busybodies. (I'll assume diapositivos comment was meant as a joke.)

    Hornby Island, a favorite place of ours, has a clothing optional beach. One cool and cloudy day I was taking LF photos at one end of the beach where there's a wonderful jumble of eroded sandstone. A fully clothed man appoached me stridently stating I wasn't allowed to take photos because it was a nude beach. My camera was clearly pointed at a rock. I offered to show him the groundglass. He repeated his assertion that no photos were allowed. There were 2 brave souls in the water at the other end of the beach - far enough away that their clothing option wasn't apparent. The camera was not pointed that away. I tool my photo, he hovered around saying I was going to get in trouble. He finally left when I folded up my tripod.

    I've taken photos there many times, sometimes when the beach is well populated by sun worshippers. No one else has ever objected because I'm respectful of other's privacy. I've seen lots of P&S cameras, and no one seems bothered by them.

    A photo I'd have loved to take was a birthday party for a matriarch. She was surrounded by her children and grandchildren. She was proudly, brownly, naked; all her family were clothed. Terrific scene, but my camera stayed in it's pack.

  5. #55

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Winnipeg, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,301
    Steve, the answer to your question is in the UK copyright law and is possibly influenced by court decisions in the UK.
    Bob

  6. #56

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Nova Scotia, Canada. Ex-California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    346
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Smith View Post
    What about an oil painting? Is a photograph of it a copy which can be an infringement or does it have to be another oil painting in order to infringe the original's copyright?
    A photograph of an oil painting is a derivative work because both are two-dimensional imagery. Even a sculpture that copies a photograph is derivative, as was established by the Rogers v. Koons case in the Supreme Court for the US, but undoubtedly very influential on IP legal thought around the world.

    However, if someone wrote an piece of music about a photograph, as Philip Glass did about Edward Muybridge (though time had elapsed on the copyright), there would not be a derivative work and no copyright problem. Likewise for a ballet about a bridge.

  7. #57
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,613
    Images
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by Monito View Post
    However, if someone wrote an piece of music about a photograph, as Philip Glass did about Edward Muybridge (though time had elapsed on the copyright), there would not be a derivative work and no copyright problem. Likewise for a ballet about a bridge.
    But what about a sound recording of a mime?!!

    Steve.
    Last edited by Steve Smith; 07-12-2011 at 09:19 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

  8. #58

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,150
    [QUOTE=2F/2F;1208146]People need to learn their highest government-granted liberties, or have them taken away by both private parties and other government bodies. It's their choice which they want. /QUOTE]

    Forgive me for picking on words, but this seems to have gotten some people revved up.

    Indeed, this is a true statement but might be more easily understood by substituting the word "protected" for 'granted'.

  9. #59

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Nova Scotia, Canada. Ex-California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    346
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Smith View Post
    But what a bout a sound recording of a mime?!!
    There the issue would be recognizability. Would it sound different from some other mime and would it be distinctly the mime in question. A tough case to prove, to say the least. However, if the mime act was like Red Skelton's miming with distinctive cowbells or other sound effects, then yes, it could be derivative and a copyright infringement.

  10. #60

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,150
    Quote Originally Posted by sly View Post
    A photo I'd have loved to take was a birthday party for a matriarch. She was surrounded by her children and grandchildren. She was proudly, brownly, naked; all her family were clothed. Terrific scene, but my camera stayed in it's pack.
    I would have asked. That would make a wonderful photo!



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin