I wrote : > And even non-artistic photography... [is copyrightable] > > However, this case draws a real distinction between the human process > of originality, and an automated process according to a set of rules. > > I've no doubt that if I take a photo out of an aeroplane window that > copyright subsists in that photo. However, it would be interesting to > see what the courts would now make of a satellite taking photos > automatically according to a standard process of the earths surface.
Richard Colless <fire...@ar.com.au> wrote: > Having just completed my Certificate IV photography course, congrats.. > I can assure you > that any photo taken for private purposes is immediately copyright to the > photographer. Photos taken for commercial purposes are also copyright, I think this is perfectly settled and clear. > Satellite photos would probably be copyright to the organisation that > commissioned the photos, because the Copyright Act makes no distinction as > to what type of camera or how it is operated. Have you read the case we are discussing? Even though the Copyright Act doesn't explicitly distinguish between these types of photos, the courts have found that there is an implied difference in the Copyright Act between an act of human originality and automatic process. So the courts have found that the Act does in fact make such a distinction. Of course it made this distinction on facts regarding building a database. That is to say that if non-copyrightable information is combined by an automated process, then copyright doesn't subsist in the resulting compilation. Given, however, that it has implied this distinction between human originality and automated processing into the Act, I maintain it would be interesting to see how it would rule on a photograph taken without any human originality or involvement, by an automated, repeated process. Ian. _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
