RE: FW: Windows Live and Privacy

["Richard M. Smith" <rms () computerbytesman com>]

WikiPedia is our friend:

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work

Here's also a bit of background on obtaining a U.S. copyright on an artwork
like a painting or statue:

   http://www.copyright.gov/register/visual.html

And how a photograph can infringe the copyright of artwork:

http://www.the-artists.org/exh/art-copyright.cfm

Who holds copyright in an image depicting fine art?

As a photographer might hold copyright in the images they provide to us, so
too would an artist hold copyright on created works of art pictured in a
photograph. Corbis can provide images of artwork, but we do not hold
copyright on the art depicted within and we cannot provide clearance. It is
the client's responsibility to obtain copyright clearance from the artist
and to pay any fees associated with usage. When possible, we will assist you
in seeking clearance but ultimate responsibility falls with you the client.

Richard

-----Original Message-----
From: funsec-bounces () linuxbox org [mailto:funsec-bounces () linuxbox org] On
Behalf Of Peter Kosinar
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 11:16 PM
To: funsec () linuxbox org
Subject: RE: [funsec] FW: Windows Live and Privacy

First, I am not a lawyer (and definitely not an expert in UK law), but this
kind of discussion always attracts my attention, as it sometimes reveals the
amount of absurdity hidden in most laws.

Alan claims that:

> I am a work of artistic craftsmanship, irrespective of artistic quality.
>
> A photo of me is a derivative work.

Could you provide any reference in laws which mentions the term "derivative
work"? Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find anything even vaguely resembling
a definition of what can be classified as "derivative work".

However, let's ignore the doubts of whether you are a copyrighted work or
not for a while and have a look at parts 30 and 31 of CDP Act 1988
(http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_4.htm#mdiv31):

     (3) No acknowledgement is required in connection with the reporting of
current events by means of a sound recording, film, broadcast or cable
programme.

     (1) Copyright in a work is not infringed by its incidental inclusion in
an artistic work, sound recording, film, broadcast or cable programme.

     (2) Nor is the copyright infringed by the issue to the public of
copies, or the playing, showing, broadcasting or inclusion in a cable
programme service, of anything whose making was, by virtue of subsection
(1), not an infringement of the copyright.


So, if I'm reading it correctly, even if you -were- a copyrighted work, you
could be photographed, as long as the photos would be taken incidentally. In
other words, if I was going to take a photo of the street and you were
walking through it, just by chance, it wouldn't be an infringement. On the
other hand, if I was trying to photograph -you-, this exception wouldn't
apply. Also, if you get shown in the TV newsflash, it's okay...


In fact, part 32 seems even more funny:

(3) Copyright is not infringed by anything done for the purposes of an
examination by way of setting the questions, communicating the questions to
the candidates or answering the questions.


So, if I was going to make an exam related to Alan, I could take as many
photos of him as I want, right? ;-)

<absurd>
If we wanted to take it to absurdum (under the assumption that one owns the
copyright to his or her outfit), Scotland Yard would not be permitted to
make a photo of a criminal and send it to police stations around the country
without infringing the criminal's copyright. Moreover, assuming that
evidence obtained through illegal means cannot be used in the court, they
also wouldn't be allowed to take any pictures at the crime scene of a
homicide (at least for the next 20 years, as it would infringe the victim's
rights) and use them to prove the guilt of the suspect.
</absurd>

Okay, enough ranting :-)

Peter

-- 
[Name] Peter Kosinar   [Quote] 2B | ~2B = exp(i*PI)   [ICQ] 134813278
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.