Joan said: >The case you refer to above involves photos of "common, industrial >items" in a catalog which means that the photos were of "three >dimensional objects" It is true that the defendant in that case claimed, among other things, that the photos in question were "of common, industrial items, lacking sufficient originality or creativity to be protectible by copyright." What you don't say is that the court _explicitly_ rejected that claim. And its decision made no distinction between photographs of two- and three-dimensional subject matter. In fact, the decision said: "There is a very broad scope for copyright in photographs, encompassing almost any photograph that reflects more than "slavish copying." (n153) The necessary originality for a photograph may be founded upon, among other things, the photographer's choice of subject matter, angle of photograph, lighting, determination of the precise time when the photograph is to be taken, the kind of camera, the kind of film, the kind of lens, and the area in which the pictures are taken. (n154) "The photographs at issue are the products of Eastern's own creative work. Judy Chien personally supervised the lay-out of the items that were photographed, positioned them in what she thought an attractive manner, selected particular angles and lighting, and in some cases even had the images enhanced by a computer to achieve the desired outcome. (n155) The creative elements asserted here satisfy the minimal originality requirement for copyright. The fact that the photos are of common industrial items does not affect their copyrightability. In fact, a photographer's "efforts to create an aesthetically attractive, technically competent photograph" of fishing gear have been held to be "plainly creative expressions." (n156) The same certainly can be said for plaintiff's photographs of electrical products. In consequence, the Court finds plaintiff's photographs were copyrightable and protected by plaintiff's registrations with the Copyright Office." And this is only one of many cases demonstrating that the copyright protection is extended or rejected based on whether the image is the product of creative work (e.g., "enhanced by a computer to achieve the desired outcome"), not on the subject matter. >Unless the "enhancement" of the two-dimentional images adds something, >alters it, or transforms it in some "creative or original" manner-- HeritageQuest claims that its images do precisely that. Their claim (and that of most digitizing companies) is that their creative post-processing of the raw image produces a new and better product than that which they slavishly copied from the public domain. To focus on whether the "underlying data" (as Kathi calls it) is in the public domain entirely misses their point and that of the supporting case law. Bob Velke President Archive CD Books USA www.ArchiveCDBooksUSA.com -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.1/278 - Release Date: 3/9/2006