Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I don't know if you can copyright a car race, so that can be different.

  Sometimes it feels like what falls and doesn't fall under copyright is
very, very arbitrary.

  For example, if someone plays a tune of 10 notes, that is rather obviously
copyrighted. However, if someone plays a chess game of 50 moves or a go game
of 400 moves, that's *not* copyrighted (anyone can publish the game as they
want). If someone designs a sudoku problem, that *is* copyrighted (as far
as I know). If someone designs a food recipe, that is *not* copyrighted
(well, the text and its formatting is, but not the contents of the recipe).

  With such arbitrary rules, you really need to be a lawyer specialized on
copyright law to be always sure.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> For a work that is displayed in public, on public land 
> 
> http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html
> 
> You can copyright a building. I don't see why you can't copyright a
> piece of sculpture in the public. At least currently in the USA.
> 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000120----000-.html

When in doubt, Wikipedia for the chapter and section of legal code, and
Cornell for the actual words.

17.1 120 (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.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian schrieb:
>> Some galleries want that copyright
>> restriction for as long as the original is in a private gallery, even
>> well past the death of the creator and the expiration of the most
>> lengthy copyright laws.
> 
> Hmm... just found this on http://www.copyright.gov/:
> 
> "Mere ownership of a book, manuscript, painting, or any
> other copy or phonorecord does not give the possessor
> the copyright. The law provides that transfer of ownership
> of any material object that embodies a protected work
> does not of itself convey any rights in the copyright"
> 
> So no, the galleries have /no/ copyright on the work, i.e. they can
> /not/ prohibit anyone from copying it by virtue of using a camera.
> 
> (They /can/ possibly prohibit use of cameras on their premises, but
> that's another issue...)
> 
> All this valid for the US only of course. And IANAL.

I didn't mean to imply that they did have copyright on the artwork, just
that some have tried to claim that they did. There was a museum or
gallery that sued a publisher for including prints of rather famous
paintings, where the originals of those paintings was in the museum or
gallery. The argument was that the paintings were in their possession,
and that taking pictures without their consent on a 'no cameras allowed'
property either gave them copyright over the pictures or made it illegal
to print them, both of which are rather silly claims.

It went to court anyhow, but I can not find anything on google about it.
 Could be that 'museum painting copyright prints' is just too vague a
search set. I will try later when I am awake.

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> 17.1 120 (a) Pictorial Representations Permitted.— The copyrigh
t 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.

Kewl. I guess that exception settles it. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian schrieb:
> I didn't mean to imply that they did have copyright on the artwork, just
> that some have tried to claim that they did. There was a museum or
> gallery that sued a publisher for including prints of rather famous
> paintings, where the originals of those paintings was in the museum or
> gallery. The argument was that the paintings were in their possession,
> and that taking pictures without their consent on a 'no cameras allowed'
> property either gave them copyright over the pictures or made it illegal
> to print them, both of which are rather silly claims.

I guess they still sued for violating their "house rules", to get at 
least /something/ out of it.

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian schrieb:
> 17.1 120 (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.

Hum... then can't we just argue that the sculpture in question is an 
architectural work? ;-)

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Hum... then can't we just argue that the sculpture in question is an 
> architectural work? ;-)

I think it likely is, yes.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New schrieb:
>> Hum... then can't we just argue that the sculpture in question is an 
>> architectural work? ;-)
> 
> I think it likely is, yes.

(I fear it actually isn't. Or does it qualify as a "building"?)

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Darren New schrieb:
>>> Hum... then can't we just argue that the sculpture in question is an 
>>> architectural work? ;-)
>>
>> I think it likely is, yes.
> 
> (I fear it actually isn't. Or does it qualify as a "building"?)

Oh, sorry. Reading it again, I thought it said "structure" and not 
"building".  So buildings can be copyrighted but not bridges? Odd.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New schrieb:
> Oh, sorry. Reading it again, I thought it said "structure" and not 
> "building".  So buildings can be copyrighted but not bridges? Odd.

That would appear to be so indeed.

Post a reply to this message