art licensing question

[Matthew Woehlke-3]

Hopefully there are some US copyright lawyers around here ;-). I want to
create an SVG that looks like a giraffe's patterning. Now, lets say my
art skills suck, and the only possible way I can do this is to trace
(NOT automated; by hand) a small section of a (presumably copyrighted
under a restrictive license) photo of a giraffe. Given that what I'm
tracing has the originality of tossing a giraffe pelt (which itself
cannot be copyrighted) on a scanner (and therefore, may not qualify for
copyright), is this OK? At what point is a photo of a non-copyrightable
object sufficiently original to be copyrighted? Is the choice of *what*
giraffe to photograph sufficiently "original"? (And yes, I know, the
Best Thing To Do is to find my own giraffe to photograph, however let's
assume that's not an option, or maybe that I'm in love with the marking
on a particular giraffe in such a photo ;-).)

(The above is actually a real example, though one of more immediate
concern involves a slab of granite. Again, AFAIK a slab of granite is
not copyrightable; if I have a picture that is effectively a scan of
said slab, is that picture subject to copyright?)

--
Matthew
Anonymous: I want the following [software] features:
Rex Dieter: ...and a pony. Can't forget the pony. (Ones with frickin'
laser beams a bonus.)

_______________________________________________
Kde-licensing mailing list
Kde-licensing@...
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-licensing

IANAL and therefore I probably shouldn't have replied.

On Friday 22 August 2008, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Hopefully there are some US copyright lawyers around here ;-). I want
> to create an SVG that looks like a giraffe's patterning. Now, lets
> say my art skills suck, and the only possible way I can do this is to
> trace (NOT automated; by hand) a small section of a (presumably
> copyrighted under a restrictive license) photo of a giraffe. Given
> that what I'm tracing has the originality of tossing a giraffe pelt
> (which itself cannot be copyrighted) on a scanner (and therefore, may
> not qualify for copyright), is this OK?

In general, I'd say no. You are creating a derivative work. Depending on
the license you might be allowed to create a derivative work.


> At what point is a photo of a
> non-copyrightable object sufficiently original to be copyrighted?

Any photography is copyrighted.

From
http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/protect/p16_photography_copyright:
<quote>
Who owns the copyright on photographs?
Under law, it is the photographer who will own copyright on any photos
he/she has taken, with the following exceptions:
- If the photographer is an employee of the company the photos are taken
for, or is an employee of a company instructed to take the photos, the
photographer will be acting on behalf of his/her employer, and the
company the photographer works for will own the copyright.
- If there is an agreement that assigns copyright to another party.
</quote>

This seems to refer to UK law, but I think more or less the same is true
in almost any county.

For Germany have a look at this:
http://www.fotorecht.de/publikationen/schutzfrist.html

In Germany there is a difference between simple photographies and
photographic works. The latter are protected for a longer period of
time.


> Is the choice of *what* giraffe to photograph sufficiently "original"?
> (And yes, I know, the Best Thing To Do is to find my own giraffe to
> photograph, however let's assume that's not an option, or maybe that
> I'm in love with the marking on a particular giraffe in such a photo
> ;-).)

Go to a zoo and take a picture of a giraffe. Or maybe one of your
friends made a photography of a giraffe and allows you to use his
photo.


> (The above is actually a real example, though one of more immediate
> concern involves a slab of granite. Again, AFAIK a slab of granite is
> not copyrightable;

I assume this a slab of natural granite and not a slab of some fake
artificial granite.


> if I have a picture that is effectively a scan of
> said slab, is that picture subject to copyright?)

Effectively? Is it a scan? Or is it a digital photography? Or is it a
scan of a photography?

Anyway, I'd say the picture is subject to copyright in any case.


Regards,
Ingo


_______________________________________________
Kde-licensing mailing list
Kde-licensing@...
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-licensing

[Matthew Woehlke-3]

Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> IANAL and therefore I probably shouldn't have replied.

:-)

> On Friday 22 August 2008, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>> Hopefully there are some US copyright lawyers around here ;-). I want
>> to create an SVG that looks like a giraffe's patterning. Now, lets
>> say my art skills suck, and the only possible way I can do this is to
>> trace (NOT automated; by hand) a small section of a (presumably
>> copyrighted under a restrictive license) photo of a giraffe. Given
>> that what I'm tracing has the originality of tossing a giraffe pelt
>> (which itself cannot be copyrighted) on a scanner (and therefore, may
>> not qualify for copyright), is this OK?
>
> In general, I'd say no. You are creating a derivative work. Depending on
> the license you might be allowed to create a derivative work.
>
>> At what point is a photo of a
>> non-copyrightable object sufficiently original to be copyrighted?
>
> Any photography is copyrighted.
>
> From
> http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/protect/p16_photography_copyright:
> <quote>
> Who owns the copyright on photographs?
> Under law, it is the photographer who will own copyright on any photos
> he/she has taken, with the following exceptions:
> - If the photographer is an employee of the company the photos are taken
> for, or is an employee of a company instructed to take the photos, the
> photographer will be acting on behalf of his/her employer, and the
> company the photographer works for will own the copyright.
> - If there is an agreement that assigns copyright to another party.
> </quote>
>
> This seems to refer to UK law, but I think more or less the same is true
> in almost any county.

It's not the law in the US. US law clearly states that a photograph must
posess an amount of originality.

http://www.photolaw.net/faq.html
"For example, if a photographer were to make an exact copy of the Mona
Lisa, the resulting image would not be protected by copyright because an
exact copy does not constitute an original work."

For that matter, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright,
the UK also requires that "there has to be some 'skill, labour and
judgment' that has gone into it."

So the granite question is certainly legitimate. The giraffe is probably
more tenuous :-).

>> (The above is actually a real example, though one of more immediate
>> concern involves a slab of granite. Again, AFAIK a slab of granite is
>> not copyrightable;
>
> I assume this a slab of natural granite and not a slab of some fake
> artificial granite.

As far as I know, blue pearl is natural.

--
Matthew
Person A: It's an ISO standard.
Person B: ...And that means what?
   --mal (http://theangryadmin.blogspot.com/2008/04/future.html)

_______________________________________________
Kde-licensing mailing list
Kde-licensing@...
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-licensing