From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Costumes[edit] Lucasfilm UK case

The 2006 U.S. case was Lucasfilm Ltd. v. Shepperton Design Studios Ltd, 2:05-cv-03434-RGK-MAN, U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles), with this final verdict in favor of Lucasfilm. The UK case seems to be Lucasfilm Ltd. v. Andrew Ainsworth, HC060C03813, High Court of Justice, Chancery Division.


I was contacted by uploader of the graffiti photo in reaction to the deletion of Image:De La Vega graffiti of Celia Cruz -2.JPG. Please see also the talk page of the image. --Zirland 19:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the uploader that Zirland mentions. I've been looking around the web for info on copyright issues for photos of graffiti and street art after a photo I took was put up for speedy deletion. I had assumed that since Category:Graffiti and Category:Murals are so well-populated there was some straightforward reason why these photos were free. It's way more complicated than that; a good conversation, in that it expresses most of the regular confusion, on the legal issues is this.
The key point appears to be whether or not artists can claim copyright on work that infringes on law, such as those specifically targeting graffiti or trespass. I can't find a firm answer. If they can claim copyright, then the practical argument is that someone who carried out an illegal act is unlikely to come forward and claim copyright. In that case, most of the graffiti pictures on Commons are still derivative works. Is the basic assumption that the graffiti was done with or without the permission of the owner of the surface? If one takes the conservative assumption that the graffiti was done with the permission of the owner, then uploaders would have to assert that the graffiti was illegal, again assuming that this makes a difference.
What seems pretty clear is that, in cases where the artist has the permission of or is commissioned by the owner of the surface, the artist owns the copyright. Some of the images in Category:Murals therefore clearly are not free and, if one assumes legality, none of them are.
I really came into this looking for a reason to keep my photo on Commons, but things look rather doubtful. So the two questions I have for the community is (1) if anyone has a clear answer about if copyright can be claimed on work created illegally and (2) do we assume legality, unless proven otherwise? Thanks, BanyanTree 16:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
There's another discussion here. And one wonders how Commons:Freedom of panorama would play in. As a matter in the real world, I'm pretty sure that the many commercial publishers of graffiti photo books assume that copyright issues are irrelevant for illegally-created works. I really think in this case it would be appropriate to develop a Commons:Murals and graffiti policy page.--Pharos 19:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
In countries which proceed from English common law (and therefore where an action to enforce copyright is in the nature of a proceeding in equity), the creator of a work who creates the work in violation of some law other than that of copyright, is likely to be barred from enforcing any copyright therein vested by the equitable doctrine of unclean hands. (An interesting possibility, however, is that a person wronged by such illegal acts might be entitled in equitable restitution to the benefit of the copyright; see also "Son of Sam laws" in the United States.) Such works are effectively in the public domain because there is no person who can effectively enforce the copyright. I am not well-enough versed in the laws of other nations to say whether similar provisions exist there, but I suspect that a similar conclusion would be reached, although not necessary by the same reasoning. Kelly Martin 19:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
And how far do you think Commons:Freedom of panorama would apply to legal murals, if it applies at all?--Pharos 20:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
It would apply in a country where freedom of panorama specifically applies to two-dimensional works. This is not the case for most of the countries listed on Commons:Freedom of panorama, and that article already discusses murals in several places. In general, one should assume that the freedom of panorama does not cover murals. Kelly Martin 20:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know, the same reasoning as the one Kelly describes applies in France and Belgium: unauthorized graffitis are not protected by droit d'auteur. I can't find my reference for France anymore (still looking). As for Belgium, I found this answer to a Parliamentary question (in French, Dutch version also available). Jastrow (Λέγετε) 21:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The reasoning explained here should be mentioned on Commons:Derivative works. Lupo 23:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph. [1] Kelly Martin 02:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
By the way, does "These countries have freedom of panorama for buildings, but not for sculptures.", include murals as well?--Pharos 06:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Clarified. It now reads "These countries have freedom of panorama only for buildings, but not for sculptures or other works." Lupo 07:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their clarifications. Now that there is written policy, can an admin make a judgment on Image:De La Vega graffiti of Celia Cruz -1.JPG and Image:De La Vega graffiti of Celia Cruz -2.JPG? The first image has been tagged for speedy deletion since this conversation began; there are apparently quite a few users who mark these images as derivative works. Would a graffiti license tag be useful in informing people of the guidelines? Thanks again, BanyanTree 14:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Photographs from places that allow only photographing for own use[edit]

See Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 6#Photographs from places that allow only photographing for own use


Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Missouri Botanical Garden - Seiwa-en.JPG

Images of Mickey Mouse and other trademarked characters[edit]

What is the status of images like these within the Wikimedia commons project?

As anyone who has attended one of these Parades at Disney theme parks, photography and videos are positively encouraged. These are all copyrighted and trademarked characters. Are the images derivative works? While we are at it, whats the status on these images (copyrighted statue etc.) in a public place. Derivative works?:

Again, these are in designated "photography encouraged" area of the theme parks. I'd like to know the status of these images before I upload anymore of them and waste my time later if they get deleted. Yes, I was on a holiday... and took a lot of pictures... --Eqdoktor 09:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all of these are derivatives, and need to be deleted. Masses of images along these lines have gone already, but more are being uploaded all the time, and some do slip though. A good summary of the law can be found at Commons:Derivative works#I know that I can't upload photos of copyrighted art (like paintings and statues), but what about toys? Toys are not art!. The general rule is that 3D models and sculptures are always copyright, and unless they are old enough to be PD they can't stay here. There are exceptions in a very few countries (such as the UK), where photo of sculptures in a public place are allowed - see Freedom of panorama - but that applies neither to Disneyland Florida nor Disneyland Paris.
You mention that in Disney parks there are areas where photography is encouraged. Unfortunately, that does not mean that Disney is granting the photographer the type of free licence that is needed here. The encouragement is simply for holiday snaps for private use only. If you were to try to use one of those images commercially you would almost certainly get a lawyer's letter and quite possibly a writ. Commons requires fully free licences, including commercial use. It would be good to be able to host these images, but unfortunately we can't --MichaelMaggs 12:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I have put in the request for all the above images to be speedily deleted as copyvio - derivative works unsuitable for commons. --Eqdoktor 06:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Madame Tussaud's[edit]

Section 62 of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, allows photographers to take pictures of, amongst other things, sculptures and works of artistic craftsmanship "if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public". Such photographs may be published in any way. I assume that the models are part of the permanent display and are not simple part of a temporary exhibit. The models must pretty clearly count as works of artistic craftsmanship, and as Lupo says, the only question is then whether Madame Tussaud's counts as "premises open to the public". Clearly, the expression "open to the public" must mean something more than "public place", and although I'm not aware of any specific case law, one of the major texts on UK copyright, Copinger and Skoane James, states that "The expression "open to the public" presumably extends the section to premises to which the public are admitted only on licence or on payment". On that basis I think these pictures are allowable on Commons. --MichaelMaggs 16:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


A scanned image that is a mere copy of an existing photograph cannot attract copyright in the UK if the copyist has devoted "no such labour and skill as conferred an originality of an artistic character"; and there can be no new copyright if the process is "wholly mechanical": see Reject Shop -v- Manners [1995] FSR 870 at 876 per Leggatt LJ. This was a case relating to the use of an enlarged photocopy, but a scan would be treated in the same way. The Court quoted an earlier Privy Council case (Interlego -v- Tyco, [1989] AC 217) where Lord Oliver had said "But copying, per se, however much skill and labour may be devoted to the process cannot make an original work". In one of the practitioners' texts, The Law of Photography and Digital Images, Christina Michalos comments that user selection of lightness/darkness and resolution settings would not be enough, but that copyright could be generated if the scanner were to be used as an art tool - eg to create a totally new work from an original arrangement of existing elements. That much is clear. Whether copyright is generated by post-processing must be a matter of degree. If all that is done is "wholly mechanical" and just needs technical rather than artistic know-how (eg how to use Photoshop to remove dust, tweak contrast etc), then no. But if the processing requires artistic judgement, even if fairly minimal, then yes. It's difficult to be precise, but it could definitely be argued that complex post-processing to enhance and bring out certain features in a selective way is of necessity artistic.

So far as images on Commons are concerned, the problem is that we often don't know what, if any, post-processing has been applied. I would think it reasonable to assume (unless we have evidence to the contrary) that what appears to be a mere scanned copy of an old photograph actually is just that, and should be kept as 'non-original'. Otherwise we will be throwing out large numbers of scans that are actually OK. MichaelMaggs 18:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Drawings made from a photo[edit]

These images depict the same angle, same pose, same facial expression, same hairstyle, same age, etc. as particular copyrighted photographs. This discussion has focused on whether they were photoshopped or sketched by hand. If my education in copyright is correct, that distinction is immaterial. An artist cannot evade copyright by freehand sketching a copyrighted likeness. Substantial creative input requires more than cosmetic alterations. As I suggested above, show the subject frying an egg. Or perhaps bending over a typewriter. Or looking at his shoulder in consternation after a bird left its colon card on his shirt. Show him laughing from three-quarter profile. In short, show the same man at a different moment and under different circumstances. Who he was, or who his particular heirs are, has no theoretical significance (although it may have practical significance). Durova 22:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no question about it: without permissions these images do indeed infringe copyright in the originals photographs, for all the reasons Durova lists above. It matters not whether the artist has added creative input of his own, and since the Deletion Requests appear to have been closed on that basis they were wrongly decided. If creative input has been added, the result is that the artist will have a copyright of his own on the end result. But that does not negate the original copyright, nor allow it to be 'overcome' in some mysterious way. Creating a copyright of one's own does not authorize infringement of someone else's copyright. The question is to what extent has the artist relied on or borrowed copyright features of the original images, and the reliance is almost total. --MichaelMaggs 07:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

These are a perfect example of images where a widely ranging fair use claim would apply in the US. They are probably perfectly legal under most circumstances in the US, and I dare say the painter could probably even use them commercially, but they are derivative works. Without invoking fair use (or similar rights) you can't overcome the fact they are based on someone else's work. Since Commons doesn't accept fair use as an argument, the logical conclusion is that these presumably aren't useable here, even though the artist may allow them to be widely used in the real world. Dragons flight 07:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


Times Square itself is obviously OK, as are pictures that happen to include billboards as a minimal or incidental part of the overall street scene. What is a problem is photos of the billboards themselves or images where the billboards appear as a prominent element. Photos of that type infringe the copyright in the printed billboard design. I'm afraid that applies even though the boards are in a public place and are there for advertising purposes. This is a common problem with photos of posters, in the same way that it's a problem with photos of CD covers, book covers, film stills and the like.

Mike Goodwin comments[edit]

  • Coin images do not fall under Bridgeman v. Corel and hence are copyrighted. [2]
  • An original which "happens to include" copyrighted or trademarked package should not be considered infringement. Such cases should be handled on a case-by-case basis if the copyright holder complains. [3]
  • The US does not honor the rule of the shorter term. Works still copyrighted in the US should not be hosted on Wikimedia servers, even if PD in country of origin.[4]
  • Extemporaneous (spontaneous, not from notes) speeches may be PD in countries (such as the U.S.) that require a work to be "fixed" or recorded in a tangible medium by the author.[5] While not addressed by Mike's comment, it should be noted that bootleg (live) music recordings are specifically prohibited in the US as an exception to this general rule.


De minimis[edit]

Mike's comment [6]

My comment:

Let's assume we have a photo with a copyright-protected poster in the background. There are two copyrights involved: that of the photographer and that of the poster-designer, and both may subsist independently. In taking the photo and uploading it to Commons, the photographer will of course be making a copy of the poster design, and without consent that will generally be an infringement and hence not allowed. The fact that the photographer has created a copyright of his/her own does not prevent the poster copyright from being infringed.
However, if the poster is entirely incidental to the overall subject-matter of the photograph (eg if the poster takes up a very small part of the image, or is largely hidden in the background), it may be considered de minimis: that comes from the phrase de minimis non curat lex: usually translated as "the law does not concern itself with trifles". In other words, a court would not be quick to uphold a claim of copyright infringement just because a photographer happened to include accidentally and incidentally a copyright-protected poster. In some countries - France comes to mind - a rule of this general type (but not in the same words) is set out explicitly; in others, it is just a rule of the court.
Be careful though: if the poster forms an essential part of the overall photographic composition, or if the photo was taken deliberately to include the poster, there is likely to be copyright infringement, and it is no defence to say that the poster was 'just in the background'. A useful test may be to ask whether the photograph would be as good or as useful if the poster were to be masked out. If no, then it is difficult to argue that the poster is actually de minimis.
Now, even if the photographer has personally escaped infringement on the de minimis principle, that does not negate the poster-designer's copyright. If I take the photo and crop it so that only the poster remains, the de minimis defence is not avaailable to me, as of course the poster design is an essential part of my crop. So, the cropped version infringes and cannot be allowed on Commons. --MichaelMaggs 17:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright status of concert photographs[edit]

What is the copyright status of photographs taken at concerts, without permission of the artists and/or their management?

I'm not asking about the house rules. If someone takes an image in violation of an explicit interdiction to take photos, that's his risk. AFAIK, the consensus here is that if such photos are freely licensed and uploaded here, Wikimedia cannot be held responsible for the breach of house rules.

But I'd like to get some clarification on whether such images are really fine copyright-wise. (Technically speaking; let's leave the ethics aside.)

I was originally worried that such photos might conflict with the performer's rights on their performance. Neighbouring rights (or "related rights") give performers exclusive rights over the "fixation" of their performance. Is a photo a "fixation" in the sense of Article 7 of the Rome Convention?

According to WIPO, the Rome Convention covers only audio and audiovisual fixations.[7] TRIPS only covers audio fixation,[8], and the WPPT explicitly limits "fixation" to sounds, too.[9] (WPPT clarifies that a "fixation" not necessarily must be a recording, it may also be a fixation of computer-generated sounds.[10]) So, apparently none of these "neighbouring rights treaties" cover photos of a performance.

There appear to be efforts underway to include "still photographs" in performer's rights, but until now, it seems to me that photographs of performances just are not covered by neighbouring rights.

So, what about copyright? Under the Berne Convention,[11] dramatic works (theater), dramato-musical works (opera), musical works (compositions), and choreographic works (dance, ballet) as well as entertainment in dumb show (?) are copyrighted (§2(1)), and the author has the exclusive right to reproduction by any means (§9), including sound or visual recordings (§9(3)). However, this concerns the works (scripts, musical scores), not the performance. So, to make a sound or video recording of a concert, one needs the consent of the composer, plus the consent of the performing artist as per the neighbouring rights. But these neighbouring rights do not cover photography. Is a photograph taken at a concert a "reproduction", a "visual recording" of the musical work? Probably not, as a photo doesn't record the music. Of a choreographic work? I don't know. In Australia, apparently not.[12] What about other countries?

Are there other reasons why such unauthorized concert photographs might be problematic copyright-wise? Or are they really fine, unencumbered by any rights the performer might have? (I'm assuming that personality rights are not an issue.)

Comments anyone? Lupo 22:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: Disclaimer: I'm not trying to shoot down our concert photographs. After all, the broad consensus here is that they're fine. But I'd like to know what we're doing, and whether this consensus is on safe ground or in a gray area. The question has come up twice before (and was left unanswered), and now a comment in a recent deletion request made me wonder again. Lupo 22:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I assume that photo of a concert are not derivative works, because the aspects of the performance that the photos show by themselves are not works. So, if at all, such photos can be affected only by these neighbouring rights. In fact, it is one of the important reasons that these neighbouring rights exist: That you can market recordings of performances of classical music, for example, which are out of copyright. Concerning whether photos of a concert must be subsumed under neighbouring rights, I assume that it depends. For example, if you use the photo to write a journalistic article about the show, I think it would be ok, but opening a fan shop and selling posters with these pictures is clearly against the interests of the performers, and thus against the spirit of these neighbouring rights. --Rtc 07:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. But someone show me where photographs are included in the neighbouring rights. I get the impression that they're not included. Now, using close-ups or even shots of the whole band in advertising or other commercial activities (such as selling t-shirts with the photos on them) may conflict with the performers' personality rights. Might photos of the whole stage be considered derivative works of the stage design? I guess that would depend on whether the stage design itself was artistic enough to be considered a work. I really do wonder...
Also, there must be a reason that photography is restricted at many concerts. If they had a copyright on photos of their performance, they could just (threaten to) sue people who publish unauthorized photos. Is security so strict about photographing because they know exactly that once a photo is taken and has been successfully smuggled out of the venue, copyright doesn't help them to suppress publication of such photos? Or is it that they think it's easier and cheaper to prevent people from taking photographs in the first place than threatening to sue later? If performers have copyrights on photos of their performance, where do these come from precisely? Lupo 10:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
What about the performers rights, wouldn't a release be required. Most venues I've worked in (in Aust) photography is expressly forbidden. this is clearly stated both on the tickets and with signage at the venue. I did photographs for a staging company of a pyro show we setup, to photograph the pyros during the show we need approval from the venue, the event promoter, and the performers.
This was all arbitary if the performance was in the public arena, then freedom of panaroma issues would arise. From Commons POV, I think that we should have a requirement that concert images have permission from the venue at the very least. aka Image:Coma - Piotr Rogucki 02.jpg The question should also be ask can the images be release under a free license anyway? Also this will vary for every country. Gnangarra 11:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Performer's rights (neighbouring rights) appear to not cover photographs of a performance, see above. Or if they do, where is that defined? Commercial uses of concert photos such as in advertising or merchandising, whether shot with permission or not, may be subject to personality rights. For such uses, the photographer would need a release and thus an accreditation for sure. I think (but am not sure) that editorial uses seem to be fine. But have the performers any say on the copyright on the images? Particularly on photos taken by unaccredited amateurs? This German lawyer also only talks about personality right infringements... Lupo 12:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The onus would have to rest with the photographer to demonstrate they have the right to release the image under a free license. If they are unable to do this then Commons would have to delete them as unknown copyright. Gnangarra 13:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't it first be on us to know exactly what the legal issues are? So far, we're not even reasonably certain that there are any copyright problems. But I, at least, am not yet reasonably convinced that there are no copyright problems. Which is why I brought up the subject, in the hope that someone more knowledgeable could explain or point to sources that do explain the issues involved. So far, I've only found discussions of personality rights issues, but none on copyrights itself. Lupo 13:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Where theres doubt then IMHO we should err on the side of caution. Immediately above the edit summary box "I hereby assert that I am the creator of this contribution and/or it does not violate any third party rights" the person contributing must be able to assert such where they cant it shouldnt be uploaded. Gnangarra 14:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
But that's precisely my point. If we could determine (or at least be reasonably sure) that concert photos of unaccredited photographers did not violate third-party copyrights, then we just have to care about the photos themselves, like we do now. But if we should discover that such concert photos did indeed present third-party copyright problems, then we might need to tighten the policy, perhaps by requiring proof of accreditation/release, or perhaps by simply assuming good faith. But I think we should first try to figure out the copyright situation before making any policy changes such as these. I don't like making restrictive policies when there's no need to. And, I'm still curious to learn whether there is a third-party copyright issue at all. There's also a practical side: what do we answer when someone asks "can I upload my photo of such-and-such concert?" Do we tell them "Yes", or "Only if you can send us a release"? Answering "Don't know" is no good: we should know what kind of content we're ready to host. Lupo 14:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There are at least four different kinds of issues here, 1. house rules, 2.personality rights, 3. copyright. 4, related rights (leistungsschutz) I'd like to kindly ask the participants to be explicit about which issue they are referring to each time they are dicussing a restriction. It's hard to follow the discussion otherwise. --Rtc 15:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. I'm interested in 3 and 4. Point 2 is not special in any way, it applies to any other photograph of a person, too. Point 1 is something between the photographer and the venue, and the assumption around here has been (AFAIK) that it doesn't concern us. Lupo 16:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think photographs of ballets, theaters or operas are often questionable. Regarding the stage setting there might be a derivative work. Concerning the neighbouring rights i favour a differentiated approach: the merit of a singer is the audible work, the merit of an actor might be a visual one. Therefore i would generally deny neighbouring rights (concerning photographs) on orchestras and pure singers. The diffcult area is the one of modern Bands where the show is a significant part of the performance. Maybe we can say that a singer's merit is the sonic one per definition. We shouldn't be too strict on that matter.--Wiggum 19:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If a photograph shows a protected work (like a creative stage setting) it is a copyvio. A photograph cannot show music. --Historiograf 01:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  • What about dance? What about lights? Questions, questions, more questions :) A.J. 14:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The Rome Convention is given effect in UK law by part II of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 which contains provisions protecting 'Rights in Performance'. A Performance is defined by s 180(2) as "a dramatic performance (including dance and mime), a musical performance, a reading or recitation of a literary work or a performance of a variety act or any similar presentation". This right is infringed if, without consent, a person makes ... a recording of a whole or any substantial part of the performance. So, effectively, the right can't be infringed by a still photograph, but only by a video or sound recording. There are criminal penalties as well for unathorised recordings. So far as I am aware, there are no special provisions in the UK relating to still photography at concerts, so the copyright question would be whether the photograph is of a 'work of artistic craftsmanship'. If so, then there would be copyright infringement; if not, there wouldn't. Whether a concert stage layout/costume design etc would qualify as a 'work of artistic craftsmanship' is anyone's guess: there are virtually no decided cases that have come before the English courts (the leading case decided that a sofa was not such a work, but that doesn't really help much!). --MichaelMaggs 16:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

After having read the various opinions on the issue, I think that some good arguments have been given that show that the position that photos in general do not fall under neighbouring rights is certainly a sustainable one. Hence, I suggest that we close the discussion and continue to permit the upload of such photos, as long as there's no copyright violation present. As always, the actual uploaders are responsible for their uploads. --Rtc 09:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The "artistic production" is the concert, not the music
Therefore, any photo of it is a derivative work of the performance as a whole (choregraphy, make up, costumes, stage placements, lights...) even if it has nothing to do with the music itself. Same thing for a theater performance, BTW, or a fixed image taken from a film. This kind of picture can (could, it has never been done AFAIK) be alowed under the quotation exception, but then anyway quotations are not alowed on Commons AFAIK. Micheletb 11:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Clearly nonsense - the photo isn't a derivative work at all --Historiograf 17:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You just can't laugh at it. The photograph must take into account the intellectual property rights associated to the show. In France:
  • "Article L122-1 : Le droit d'exploitation appartenant à l'auteur comprend le droit de représentation et le droit de reproduction." (The right of exploitation belonging to the author shall comprise the right of performance and the right of reproduction.)
  • "Article L122-3: La reproduction consiste dans la fixation matérielle de l'oeuvre par tous procédés qui permettent de la communiquer au public d'une manière indirecte. / Elle peut s'effectuer notamment par imprimerie, dessin, gravure, photographie, moulage et tout procédé des arts graphiques et plastiques, enregistrement mécanique, cinématographique ou magnétique." (Reproduction shall consist in the physical fixation of a work by any process permitting it to be communicated to the public in an indirect way. / It may be carried out, in particular, by printing, drawing, engraving, photography, casting and all processes of the graphical and plastic arts, mechanical, cinematographic or magnetic recording.)
Hence: you can't take a photograph of a show, unless the auther authorises it. I bet it's the same in the US, or any civilized country. Michelet-密是力 17:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
You raise an interesting point. However, above, we have seen that it is the reproduction of the work that is protected by the Rome convention. The performance is protected only with the neighbouring rights, and there it is only the audio record that is protected. The stage setting may have originality, but works of architecture may be photographed. So I would draw the line to the images where an original stage setting forms a major theme. Just an artist with a part of blurred wall behind him cannot possibly infringe the copyright of the stage designer. The same must apply to the clothing worn by the person, unless the clothing is the object of the photograph. If we start to think that the background of the image must not include any copyrightable material, we cannot publish almost any photographs taken indoors. After all, the walls are part of the architectural work. --MPorciusCato 12:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


In Germany, applied art has a significantly higher threshold of originality. See, for example, this applied art which was declared ineligible for copyright by the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany. (from comment by AFBorchert, 1 May 2009)


In Carol Barnhart v Economy Cover Corp (2nd Cir 1985), 773 F.2d at 418 it was held that conceptual separability exists when the artistic aspects of an article can be "conceptualized as existing independently of their utilitarian function". This independence is necessarily informed by "whether the design elements can be identified as reflecting the designer's artistic judgment independently of functional influences": Brandir International, Inc v Cascade Pacific Lumber Co (2nd Cir 1987), 834 F.3d at 1145. (Quotes from Gorman & Ginsburg, Copyright: Cases and Materials, 7th edn 2006, p243).

No uploads[edit]

{{NoUploads}} Warning for use in Categories and galleries that Works by this artist are not in the public domain.