Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="Kevin Flynn, post: 3098687, member: 75567"]slavish copybasic definition or concept is a photo of a photo, examples1. Nimmer on Copyright (“A photograph of another photograph that amounts to nothing more than slavish copying lacks the requisite originality to qualify for protection2. Hand drawn sketches of a photo are not copyrightable.  ATC Distrib. Grp. v. Whatever It Takes Transmissions & Parts, Inc., 402 F.3d 700, 712 (6th Cir. 2005)3. color transparencies of a painting are not copyrightable.Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191, 197 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) Basic requirements for a photograph to be copyrightable1. Photo must be original to the author -Feist Publ’ns Inc., v. Rural Tel. Service CThe Supreme Court specifically stated in Feist (Emphasis added) "To qualify for copyright protection, a work must be original to the author. See Harper Row, supra, at <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/539/case.html#547" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/539/case.html#547" rel="nofollow">471 U. S. 547</a>-549. Original, as the term is used in copyright, means only that the work was independently created by the author (as opposed to copied from other works), and that it possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity. 1 M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Copyright §§ 2.01[A], (1990) (hereinafter Nimmer).  To be sure, the requisite level of creativity is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice. The vast majority of works make the grade quite easily, as they possess some creative spark, "no matter how crude, humble or obvious" it might be. Id. § 1.08[C][1]. Originality does not signify novelty; a work may be original even though it closely resembles other works, so long as the similarity is fortuitous, not the result of copying. To illustrate, assume that two poets, each ignorant of the other, compose identical poems. Neither work is novel, yet both are original and, hence, copyrightable. See Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 81 F.2d 49, 54 (CA2 1936)." 2.In Daniel P. Schrock, d/b/a Dan Schrock Photography vs. Learning Curve International. Inc., RC 2 Brands, Inc., and Hit Entertainment No. 08-1296, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit stated regarding copyrighted photographs and requirements for originality (with emphasis bolded): "Federal courts have historically applied a generous standard of originality in evaluating photographic works for copyright protection. See, e.g., Ets-Hokin, 225 F.3d at 1073-77; SHL Imaging, Inc. v. Artisan House,Inc., 117 F. Supp. 2d 301, 305 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). In some cases, the original expression may be found in the staging and creation of the scene depicted in the photograph. See, e.g., Mannion v. Coors Brewing Co., 377 F. Supp. 2d 444, 452 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). But in many cases, the photographer does not invent the scene or create the subject matter depicted in it. Rather, the original expression he contributes lies in the rendition of the subject matter—that is, the effect created by the combination of his choices of perspective, angle, lighting, shading, focus, lens, and so on. See  id.; Rogers v. Koons, 960 F.2d 301, 307 (2d Cir. 1992) (“Elements of originality in a photograph may include posing the subjects, lighting, angle, selection of film and camera, evoking the desired expression, and almost any other variant involved.”). Most photographs contain at least some originality in their rendition, see Mannion, 377 F. Supp. 2d at 452 (“Unless a photograph replicates another work with total or near-total fidelity, it will be at least somewhat original in the rendition.”), except perhaps for a very limited class of photographs that can be characterized as “slavish copies” of an underlying work, Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. v. Corel Corp., 25 F. Supp. 2d 421, 427 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (finding no originality in transparencies of paintings where the goal was to reproduce those works exactly and thus to minimize or eliminate any individual expression)."3. In order to litigate, photographs must be registered with the Copyright office, before there is an infringement. Kevin [/QUOTE]

Create my FREE Account!

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches