Re: [HAPS-L] How far does copyright go?

[Alan <amagid@xxxxxxxxx>]

Title: Re: [HAPS-L] How far does copyright go?

Ken-

Aphotograph of a public building belongs to the photographer. The photo is the “work”. The photo doesn’t change ownership of the design and plans (the work). The building is not a work from this point of view. But buildings according to works are protected from duplication. Trademark and patent issues are separate. “Golden Arches”, for example.

Likewise, a micrograph is the work. A microslide is not a work, and so can’t be copyrighted.

The copyright office has a useful guide online for free download. Use google to find it. All US govt works are public domain, btw. Copyright is simple at its heart: to the creator belongs the right to copy.

-Alan 


On 4/18/07 2:59 PM, "MALACHOWSKY,KEN" <Ken.Malachowsky@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> A photographer takes some pictures of buildings in NYC and publishes them in his book.  Does he need permission from the owners of the buildings in order to publish the images?    Has anyone on this list serve ever asked permission from Carolina or Nasco in order to produce digitized images from their slides (realizing the images can end up in a lab manual or a PPT presentation)?  Do we need permission to take pics of organs? The company went through the “work” to produce a “clean” looking organ; just as they went through the work to make a histological specimen.  These copyright issues and safety issues both can seem to go a bit extreme.  
>  
>  
> Just wondering,