[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-licensing
Subject:    Re: art licensing question
From:       Ingo =?iso-8859-1?q?Kl=F6cker?= <kloecker () kde ! org>
Date:       2008-08-23 22:09:30
Message-ID: 200808240009.30722 () thufir ! ingo-kloecker ! de
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/signed)]


IANAL and therefore I probably shouldn't have replied.

On Friday 22 August 2008, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Hopefully there are some US copyright lawyers around here ;-). I want
> to create an SVG that looks like a giraffe's patterning. Now, lets
> say my art skills suck, and the only possible way I can do this is to
> trace (NOT automated; by hand) a small section of a (presumably
> copyrighted under a restrictive license) photo of a giraffe. Given
> that what I'm tracing has the originality of tossing a giraffe pelt
> (which itself cannot be copyrighted) on a scanner (and therefore, may
> not qualify for copyright), is this OK?

In general, I'd say no. You are creating a derivative work. Depending on 
the license you might be allowed to create a derivative work.


> At what point is a photo of a 
> non-copyrightable object sufficiently original to be copyrighted?

Any photography is copyrighted.

From 
http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/protect/p16_photography_copyright:
<quote>
Who owns the copyright on photographs?
Under law, it is the photographer who will own copyright on any photos 
he/she has taken, with the following exceptions:
- If the photographer is an employee of the company the photos are taken 
for, or is an employee of a company instructed to take the photos, the 
photographer will be acting on behalf of his/her employer, and the 
company the photographer works for will own the copyright.
- If there is an agreement that assigns copyright to another party.
</quote>

This seems to refer to UK law, but I think more or less the same is true 
in almost any county.

For Germany have a look at this:
http://www.fotorecht.de/publikationen/schutzfrist.html

In Germany there is a difference between simple photographies and 
photographic works. The latter are protected for a longer period of 
time.


> Is the choice of *what* giraffe to photograph sufficiently "original"?
> (And yes, I know, the Best Thing To Do is to find my own giraffe to
> photograph, however let's assume that's not an option, or maybe that
> I'm in love with the marking on a particular giraffe in such a photo
> ;-).)

Go to a zoo and take a picture of a giraffe. Or maybe one of your 
friends made a photography of a giraffe and allows you to use his 
photo.


> (The above is actually a real example, though one of more immediate
> concern involves a slab of granite. Again, AFAIK a slab of granite is
> not copyrightable;

I assume this a slab of natural granite and not a slab of some fake 
artificial granite.


> if I have a picture that is effectively a scan of 
> said slab, is that picture subject to copyright?)

Effectively? Is it a scan? Or is it a digital photography? Or is it a 
scan of a photography?

Anyway, I'd say the picture is subject to copyright in any case.


Regards,
Ingo

["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

_______________________________________________
Kde-licensing mailing list
Kde-licensing@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-licensing


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]