Bill, Doesn't this depend upon how good the image is? A very good -- almost exact -- image does not require any creativity. An image that has been enhanced or changed does require *some* creativity -- enough to copyright? I'm sure this has been discussed in the past. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think I could claim copyright on a photocopy of a deed or an exact scan of this photograph. Debbie Graphics copyrights are a bit different. If someone takes an image of a graphic in an original document that's out of copyright they don't own the copyright of the graphic in the original document but they do own the copyright on their image. Though perhaps that's not so different. Here what's copyrighted is the creative process of taking the image--- not the information contained in the image. Bill ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

Debbie I admit to no special knowledge concerning copyright. Indeed, my reasons for being on this list in the first place was related to this very issue with regard to graphics. The Bridgeman vs Corel item mentioned by Joan in a previous email seems to speak very much to the point. Its a District Court ruling, rather than a Supreme Court ruling (such as Rural vs. Feist), and its fairly old (1998), but perhaps there's no subsequent case law that can be cited. It does seem to be saying that a photographic image of an uncopyrighted item is not itself copyrightable. There seem to be some exceptions, and the key point is whether there's any original creativity involved in making the copy. In that regard making a VERY good copy (meaning an exact, indistinguishable copy) would seem to give no copyrightable status....but making an image of an image that involved some creativity (say using filters to selectively distort some portions of the images (ie, making it "artsy") might be copyrightable. I'll have to read the Bridgeman vs Corel ruling more closely to understand the limitations here. Bill On Sep 1, 2007, at 10:02 AM, RoverLSmith@aol.com wrote: > > Bill, > > Doesn't this depend upon how good the image is? > > A very good -- almost exact -- image does not require any creativity. > > An image that has been enhanced or changed does require *some* > creativity -- > enough to copyright? I'm sure this has been discussed in the past. > > Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think I could claim copyright on a > photocopy of > a deed or an exact scan of this photograph. > > Debbie > > Graphics copyrights are a bit different. If someone takes an image > of a graphic in an original document that's out of copyright > they don't own the copyright of the graphic in the original document > but they do own the copyright on their image. Though perhaps that's > not so different. > Here what's copyrighted is the creative process of taking the > image--- > not the information contained in the image. > > Bill > > > > > > > ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all- > new AOL at > http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to COPYRIGHT- > request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message

Bill said: >It does seem to be saying that a photographic image of an >uncopyrighted item is not itself copyrightable. There seem to be >some exceptions, and the key point is whether there's any original >creativity involved in making the copy. In that regard making a VERY >good copy (meaning an exact, indistinguishable copy) would seem to >give no copyrightable status....but making an image of an image that >involved some creativity (say using filters to selectively distort >some portions of the images (ie, making it "artsy") might be >copyrightable. The point is not whether there _appears_ to have been any creativity involved in making the copy -- it is whether there was, in fact, any creativity involved. If one takes a poor copy of a document (e.g., because that's all that still exists) and reconstructs an image which is indistinguishable from the document when originally published, then that requires original creativity and is covered by copyright, according to my intellectual property attorney. In other words, your talent in restoring an original doesn't disqualify you from copyright protection on your creative work. Bob Velke -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.13.1/982 - Release Date: 8/31/2007 5:21 PM