Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Beefer518, post: 2831649, member: 87737&quot;]The problem with the Bridgeman case is that it was specific to exact reproductions of works of art. Yes, some can say that a coin is a work of art, but a coin is 3-dimensional, and cannot be exactly reproduced by a photograph, so it is not a copy per se, the photograph itself becomes a separate, individual, and unique piece, which then entitles it to copyright protection. The Bridgeman case also is not a precedent setting case, and shouldn&#039;t (and isn&#039;t) be used in similar copyright cases. Courts have already decided that photographs of 3 dimensional works are art, in and of them self, and entitled to protection. With 3-D objects, creative angles, lighting, and other techniques play a part in the final image (see example below). In the Bridgeman case, the image was a flat-field exact reproduction, or a &#039;copy&#039;, so it doesn&#039;t get copyright protection, as it is not original. The discussion we have been having has nothing to do with what was found in the Bridgeman case. If this was an art forum, and we were talking about exact reproductions (including color rendition, which we all know in coins can vary between photographers), then the &#039;loophole&#039; would have been brought up. But we were talking about general use of images created by others, of which each is unique, and therefore hold copyright protection. So I see the point you&#039;re trying to make, but I don&#039;t think it applies in the discussion at hand.</p><p><br /></p><p>Samples of how &#039;creative use of lighting&#039; will make the same subject look very different, constituting artistic value:</p><p>[ATTACH=full]667521[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]667523[/ATTACH][/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