tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5764290.post3156864466365859539..comments2024-03-22T08:01:16.236-04:00Comments on Rebecca Tushnet's 43(B)log: Seventh Circuit rejects Gracen, tries againUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5764290.post-88190216351486097802009-11-24T21:49:25.157-05:002009-11-24T21:49:25.157-05:00Anonymous: I'm not quite sure what difference ...Anonymous: I'm not quite sure what difference you're arguing the business relationship should make. In Gracen, Gracen was also authorized to make her painting, just as Schrock was authorized to take his photos. <br /><br />In your hypothetical, the photograph may well be copyrightable. But it will also be either a reproduction of the subject or a derivative work of the subject; either way, the copyright owner of the subject may have some rights that need to be considered. You can argue that this is a bad idea and that one should be able to take a photo of anything in public spaces (as there is a statutory exclusion for photos of architectural works in public), but that's not the law at present.RThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00850241338827117087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5764290.post-77203772162784872222009-11-24T21:28:11.278-05:002009-11-24T21:28:11.278-05:00Hi Professor Tushnet:
I want to thank you for you...Hi Professor Tushnet:<br /><br />I want to thank you for your wonderful blog. It's so nice to have someone as knowledgeable as yourself to help explain decisions like this one.<br /><br />I'm struggling with your analysis because it doesn't seem to take into account the business dealings between the photographer and the toy maker. You look at the works at issue in Shrock and Gracen apart from the situation in which they were made and come to the conclusion that they cannot be synthesized. <br /><br />But I don't think there's any way to make the Copyright Act work unless you look at the situational context of copying -- not just in terms of access but the business dealings, or lack thereof, between parties. <br /><br />Suppose you take a photo of a building (or a pin ball machine or a park bench) that is registered as a sculptural work, and has conceptually separable parts with sufficient originality to merit copyright protection. The photography World is built around the resulting pics not being an infringing work, derivative or otherwise. <br /><br />Is there any way to distinguish my hypo from Schrock if you don't take into account the context of the creative act?<br /><br />Am I making sense or are my concerns just gibberish?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com