Posts by Fooman
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Capture: Howling at the Moon, in reply to David Hood,
Broadly, I would agree with you however, as I understand it the test for orignality (being copyrightable) is (in New Zealand, which differs from the U.S. law that most discussion is based on) from the "independent labour and skill" of the artist, evidenced by:
(a) "very fine work involving a high degree of concentration, skill and care";
(b) work "of great delicacy and intense application";
(c) "remarkable" work; or
(d) work of a "high standard".
So, in a legally untested kind of way, it is quite possible that a careful reproduction of archival material attaches a copyright to the reproduction, where the original was public domain.The Copyright Act 1994, Section 14, would appear to disagree with you:
A work is not original if—
(a) it is, or to the extent that it is, a copy of another work; or
(b) it infringes the copyright in, or to the extent that it infringes the copyright in, another work.
(a) suggests that if the work is a copy of another work, it is not original. Even if it is a copy of a public domain image (e.g. a image out-of-copyright), and the intention is to make a close-as-to-exact copy of the work, I don't see how that could be defined as an original work, in terms of the Act.
It seems obvious to me that faithful reproduction of images, either copyright, or not, are not in themselves copyrightable (this actually makes sense, otherwise copyright would turn into a joke - I could claim copyright on anything I copied if "sweat of the brow" was involved)
Some libraries have this sorted out, and simply ask for acknowledgement as the source of the image. Others claim copyright on faithful copies of public domain images. Which doesn't sit well with me.
FM
-
Capture: Howling at the Moon, in reply to Lilith __,
Isn't the threshold for re-using someone else's photo 10%? ie. up to 10% of your picture may be borrowed from another image?
10%, as far as I know, is not enshrined in legislation or common law.
FM
-
What I am curious about is the appropriate of digital images (scans) of images that are out of copyright, e.g. any photographs taken in NZ before 1944 had no copyright (expired after 50 years) when the 1994 Copyright Act was passed – this legislation did not re-instate such copyright.
Copyright is held in (amongst others) artistic works, such as photographs, where there is obvious skill or labour in the production of a original artistic work. Russell’s snap of a sign may fall under this definition. Or he may not – if the photo lacked sufficient originality.
Online libraries, for example, may claim copyright on scanned out-of-copyright images, but given that they repoduce, with some fidelity (due to the skill and labour of the person doing the scanning), the original, thereby creating a facsimile, with little or no originality, that claim may be invalid. It appears that such claims have never been tested in common law, unlike a most recent case involving different photographs of the same thing.
This always leads me in a big circle – if I photograph a photograph, and apply a magnitude of artistic change, who owns the copyright? A recent example failed to test this in (US) court. If I copy a digital copy (using my own skill and labour) of a digital copy of an out-of-copyright work, who has copyright – them, me or no-one? If a copy is made of an out-of-copyright image, via an automated process (e.g. a semi-automated desktop transparency scanner), is putting film on a bit of glass and pressing a button sufficient artistic effort to claim copyright?
Meh.
FM -
Hard News: One man’s Meat Puppets is…, in reply to Russell Brown,
This thread is making me think. I know little or nothing of classical musical music -- I'm sure if I put in the time I'd discover what I liked.
I can only recommend Stephen Malinowski's visual transciptions of assorted pieces. Probably the most _pure_ music videos I know of. Example:
I came across them following a link to the Nokia Fugue:
Cheers,
FM -
Hard News: One man’s Meat Puppets is…, in reply to Scott Chris,
For some reason I prefer this version:
-
Southerly: Village People, in reply to StepDoh,
Oooh, do you have a recipe for your 'everything free' cake? First daughter and possibly second son has similar allergies (although not soy, strangely/luckily) and that cake looks delish.
Look up recipies for Crazy Cake, if you haven't already done so. One of our son's friends was gluten/egg/dairy intolerant, and we would make crazy cake for a treat when they came to a party etc. Potato flour, oil instead of butter, no egg.
FM
-
-
-
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/rebuilding-christchurch/6272667/Red-zoners-bullied-in-Govt-buyout
"Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee could not be reached for comment yesterday, but has previously argued the high uptake of the red-zone offers was proof of their popularity. "
So, compulsory purchases are popular, because their uptake is high? Fantastic logic there, G.
FM
-
Hard News: Merry Christmas, Blossoms, in reply to Robyn Gallagher,
Won't someone think of the poor South Islanders and inland North Islanders who can't enjoy pohutukawa in full bloom?
But they do get to enjoy the crimson bloom of the rata, both Northen and Southern.
FM