Mark: thanks, that's an interesting article.
Bob: I don't know how it works on your side of the pond, but in the US,
sculptures in a photo MAY BE and often ARE covered by copyright.
There have been several cases in the past decade or so.
See e.g. this case:
http://www.sculpture.org/documents/scmag05/may_05/webspecs/grant.shtml
It looks like it is different in Canada:
http://www.photoattorney.com/update-on-lawsuit-against-photographer-for-photo-of-sculpture/
If you read that second reference above, you'll see that you can
photograph and paint (on your own media! ;-) ) public buildings without
copyright infringements.
As for clothes, I know much less about that area.
There is much lower level of copyright protection in the fashion design
(if at all). You can read e.g. this document:
http://copyright.gov/docs/regstat072706.html
HTH,
Igor
Bob W-PDML Sat, 31 Oct 2015 11:38:41 -0700 wrote:
I can't see the difference between photographing someone with tattoos and
someone wearing clothes that someone else has designed, or a street
containing buildings and billboards, and tons of other shit that's
copyright. Sounds to me like a lawyer trying to drum up some spurious
business.
B
On 31 Oct 2015, at 18:22, Mark Roberts <postmas...@robertstech.com> wrote:
Some interesting questions arise!
http://improvephotography.com/35091/copyright-nightmare-taking-photos-of-people-with-tattoos/
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
