Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 2291617, member: 112&quot;]That&#039;s all well and good Eddie, but it still doesn&#039;t obviate this - the legal definition of a visual work of art.</p><p><br /></p><p><b><i>Visual Artists Rights Act - VARA (1990)</i></b></p><p><i>“<a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106A" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106A" rel="nofollow">Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity</a>” - Section 106A, US Code - Title 17 - Copyrights -</i></p><p><i><br /></i></p><p><i>Definition of a “<a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101" rel="nofollow">work of visual art</a>” in Section 101, US Code</i></p><p><i><br /></i></p><p><i>(1) a painting, drawing, print or sculpture, existing in a single copy, in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and consecutively numbered by the author, or, in the case of sculpture, in multiple cast, carved, or fabricated sculpture of 200 or fewer that are consecutively numbered by the author and bear the signature or other identifying mark of the author; or (2) a still photographic image produced for exhibition purposes only, existing in a single copy that is signed by the author, or in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and consecutively numbered by the author.</i></p><p><br /></p><p>What&#039;s more, if you click on the notes tab for your citation you find this -</p><p><br /></p><p><i>The four items defined in section 101 are “literary works,” “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works,” “motion pictures and audiovisual works”, and “sound recordings”. In each of these cases, definitions are needed not only because the meaning of the term itself is unsettled but also because the distinction between “work” and “material object” requires clarification.</i></p><p><br /></p><p>That indicates to me that the definition found in VARA is indeed critical to determining what has copyright protection, and what does not.</p><p><br /></p><p>In addition to that, if you read further down in the notes you find reference to the Supreme Court case of Mazer v. Stein. In that case, in regard to definitions, the court denied that -&nbsp; <i>&quot;works of “applied art” encompass all original pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works that are intended to be or have been embodied in useful articles &quot;</i></p><p><i><br /></i></p><p>They also state - &quot;<i>The scope of exclusive rights in these works is given special treatment in section 113, to be discussed below.&quot;&nbsp; </i> Which is found here -&nbsp; <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/113" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/113" rel="nofollow">https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/113</a>&nbsp; - pay particular attention to paragraph -</p><p><b><br /></b></p><p><b>(C)</b>. <i>In the case of a work lawfully reproduced in useful articles that have been offered for sale or other distribution to the public, copyright does not include any right to prevent the making, distribution, or display of pictures or photographs of such articles in connection with advertisements or commentaries related to the distribution or display of such articles, or in connection with news reports.</i></p><p><i><br /></i></p><p>Which means to me that even if a picture is protected under the qualifications stated in VARA, that picture may still be reproduced without violating copyright.</p><p><br /></p><p>In other words, even a picture that is protected by copyright, can be copied and posted here on the forum, or in other venues, without violating copyright.</p><p><br /></p><p>Now I&#039;ve readily admitted that I am no lawyer, but given what I have presented it seems to be explained in pretty clear and plain language that anybody can understand. And it is only upon these things that I am basing my opinion.</p><p><br /></p><p>Prior to the discussions in this thread, just like you Eddie, I was always of the belief that pictures, (photographs), anybody&#039;s pictures, were protected by copyright. It is only with the further exploration and finding of what I have found that I changed my mind. For it seems to me that pictures, unless under very specific circumstances and definitions as dictated in VARA, are not protected by copyright. And even, they can still be reproduced, for certain uses.</p><p><br /></p><p>Understand Eddie, I am not trying to argue. I just find it very hard to deny what is written.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in