[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Perhaps your issue with my request to have the website removed also
hinges on whether or not the original photograph was part of the
intended copyright. I'm not trying to co-opt the copyright of the
Wellnhofer photograph. Thata's a separate layer in a Photoshop file. I
think I own the tracing I made of it. If I don't, then you'll have to
decide whether Bennett or Wellnhofer own it, if you don't want to place
it in the public domain at the moment of its creation.
All original work, no matter how derived should be proteced. And if not
protected, then at least respected.
Imagine, if you will, that you were working on a dig. Someone took a
photograph of the specimen. You traced it for eventual publication. You
sent it to someone for comments and that someone placed it on the web.
Now, it's not your photograph, but the tracing is yours. And third party
you trusted broke the trust, in my opinion.
If you want to throw out the copyright issue, let's do. Now the issues
become prior consent and pre-publishing. Imagine now an editor sending
you a manuscript and drawings for you to referee. You decide to take
what you were sent and publish it on the web because you disagreed with
Anyone who supports the former issue, it would seem, should also be able
to support the latter issue. The editor is just a middleman.
Dave Peters writes:
<< PS. Regarding D. Varner's recent posting regarding tracing
pictures: As far as I know, tracing is still legal. >>
I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. I'd be in solitary with no
of parole if it wasn't! My concern was copyrighting a tracing of
already copyrighted. I posed this question to a photographer friend who
runs an agency representing a number of wildlife photographers and
and have just heard back from him. He admitted that the area was a
complicated and he lacked expertise, but he did have a problem with the
practice. He said, "If the photograph was the only information source
and it was traced (a direct form of reproduction), I would think the
would need the photographer's permission. In court, however, the case
end up hinging on things like how closely the tracing resembled the
generally don't go after artistic renditions unless you can put it next
own photo and it's really obvious it's a copy." Not necessarily a legal
opinion but a practical one from someone in the business. DV