Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Let's explore this a little further. In what way does my photograph of a Dalek differ from, let's say, a picture of someone wearing clothes? The design of those clothes is equally protected by copyright law, is it not? Are you suggesting that every photograph of someone wearing clothes is a copyright infringement?
|
For the most part, no, clothing does not have copyright protection.
On copyright over "useful articles"
http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat072706.html
"First, copyright protection for the designs of useful articles is extremely limited. The design of a useful article is protected under copyright “only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.”
A fair use argument may be made that the copyrighted works are incidentally in the photograph and the photograph serves another purpose rather than just to copy the protected work. This would account for artwork or buildings in the background of a photograph primarily of people. A picture of just a Dalek is unlikely to meet such a test.
A Dalek is arguably not a useful article. The closest analog would be a replica statue of an original artwork. A photograph of said replica still infringes the underlying copyright of the original artwork.
Greg Weeks