Quote:
Originally Posted by slayda
I would like to propose a question of moral (not necessarily legal) ownership of intellectual property through an example.
Suppose: - I design and build a totally unique house.
- Photographer Joe takes a picture (without my permission) of my house and sells it to Time magazine.
- Time publishes an article on houses and includes this picture.
- I buy a copy of Time magazine and copy the picture to use in my Builders News Letter which is distributed for free to other designers and builders.
- I send out the News Letter to my subscribers.
Who "morally" owns what intellectual property? Me, Joe, Times magazine?
Although US copyright laws would say that Joe owned the copyright of the picture and could legally sell it to Times magazine, it all started with my creative design and therefore "my" IP (IMHO). However under the current laws, I could be prosecuted for violation of copyright. TANJ! |
Ummm... Sorry, but Joe owns the copyright to the image. While, yes, *you* creatively expressed yourself in designing and building the house, *he* creatively expressed himself in making (and I use the term quite properly as he did not just 'happen' upon the angle of view, the lighting, the season - rather he chose to combine those elements) the image of your house. Now once he sold certain rights to use to Times magazine, *they* now own those rights.
Claiming that your creative expression is valid, yet his creative expression is not defies logic.
So you *can* use the image, but if you do so, you must clearly state that the image is copyrighted to Joe and Time magazine. The house, of course, still remains yours.
Derek