Pat, Thanks for the reply. Indeed, I had not read in depth the decision of the Bridgeman vs. Corel, which I have since done. And I admit, I had misunderstood the central point of the decision, which you correctly put is about the lack of copyright protection for "slaving copying" of another work. I am not sure of exactly when that line is crossed between desire to copy with perfection another work, and making a creative photorepresentation of something, but then again, I am not sure the courts are exactly sure either. Thanks for pointing this out to me! I am not a lawyer, so I am always trying to learn more about the intricacies of copyright law. (Though I suppose lawyers should do the same :) James -----Original Message----- From: Pat Asher [mailto:pasher@ee.net] Sent: Fri 03-Feb-06 18:13 To: COPYRIGHT-L@rootsweb.com Cc: Subject: RE: [COPYRIGHT] Re: Protecting copyrighted photos At 03:35 PM 2/3/2006, James Capobianco wrote: >Perhaps you've already had this discussion, but as far as I understand >copyright law, a photo seeking to faithfully reproduce a public domain >work (in this case, a tombstone), does not itself have copyright >protection. The Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. (1999) made it >clear that exact photographic reproductions of works in the public >domain are not copyrightable. Um, I'm afraid you have missed some crucial language in the Bridgeman V. Corel decision. Actually, the decision ultimately had nothing to do with the public domain status of the work being copied. The question decided was whether a "slavish" copy was an original work eligible for copyright protection. The court decided it was not, i.e. "Absent a genuine difference between the underlying work of art and the copy of it for which protection is sought, the public interest in promoting progress in the arts -- indeed, the constitutional demand -- could hardly be served." The Court indicated that technical skill in accurately reproducing the work being copied did not make the copy a creative work eligible for copyright protection. On the other hand. you and I could stand side by side and photograph the same tombstone at the same time and each of our photographs would be copyrighted. While the difference in perspective might be a matter of inches, each perspective was original. If I photographed a tombstone today, and marked the spot for you to stand on to duplicate the photo tomorrow, yours would still be "original". The time of day could be different, the day of the year (and therefore the light) would be different, if you were taller or shorter than I, the perspective would be different, and you might even decide to come back a month later when the sun would be lower in the sky <g> The data, i.e. names, dates, etc., inscribed on the tombstone is public domain. A photograph of the tombstone is copyrighted. Pat ==== COPYRIGHT Mailing List ==== LATIN-WORDS-L is a mailing list for anyone with a genealogical or historical interest in deciphering and interpreting written documents in Latin from earliest to most recent 20th Century times, and discussing old Latin words, phrases, names, abbreviations and antique jargon. To subscribe, send subscribe to mailto:LATIN-WORDS-L-request@rootsweb.com (Mail Mode) or mailto:LATIN-WORDS-D-request@rootsweb.com (Digest Mode) ============================== Jumpstart your genealogy with OneWorldTree. Search not only for ancestors, but entire generations. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13972/rd.ashx

At 01:02 PM 2/5/2006, you wrote: >I am not sure of exactly when that line is crossed between desire to copy >with perfection another work, and making a creative photorepresentation of >something, but then again, I am not sure the courts are exactly sure either. I am not a lawyer either, and I am sure there will continue to be discussion on the point <g> But in my untrained opinion, I believe Bridgeman v. Corel has an answer. [32] .... Most photographs are "original" in one if not more of the three respects [interpretation of the scene or object using technical knowledge, creation of the scene itself, opportunism i.e. the decisive moment], set out in the treatise and therefore are copyrightable. Plaintiff's problem here is that it seeks protection for the exception that proves the rule: photographs of existing two-dimensional articles (in this case works of art), each of which REPRODUCES the article in the photographic medium AS PRECISELY AS TECHNOLOGY PERMITS. Its transparencies stand in the same relation to the original works of art as a photocopy stands to a page of typescript, a doodle, or a Michelangelo drawing. Plaintiff admitted their copies were meant to reproduce the original works as accurately as possible without variance or interpretation. If they had photographed the paintings in the context of their location in the gallery (for example), then subjective decisions about lighting, angle, filters, etc. would all make that photograph original, even though the underlying artwork was public domain. Pat