[cc-licenses] Photo alongside text: collective or derivative
Peter Brink
peter.brink at brinkdata.se
Thu Jul 13 15:48:03 EDT 2006
Terry Hancock skrev:
> Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> I have photos of famous places sitting on my hard drive. I think they
>> might be more useful if they were available for anyone to use.
>> Hence, I've been considering PD, CC-by and CC-by-sa. I am trying to
>> understand what ShareAlike means when applied to photos.
>
> Crop, combine, collage, phototint, add animated characters, use
> as backdrop or rear projection in film, just about anything you can
> do with it in Gimp or Inkscape, etc, etc.
>
> All of those imply a derivative or combined work.
>
Ah - but this issue is not so simple in Finland... One needs to be aware
of the differences between photographic works that are original (and
thus copyright protected) and unoriginal photographic works under
Scandinavian law.
A original photographic work is an "artistic" photograph where the
photographer have had control over the setting, the lighting, the
subject etc. of the photograph. A typical example would be a studio
photograph.
A unoriginal photographic work, on the other hand, is a photo where the
photographer has just pointed the lens toward a subject and pushed a
button. A tourist photo would be a good example of such a photo.
The rules regarding unoriginal photographic works can be found in Art.
49 a. of the Finnish Copyright Act. Art 49 a. excludes art 1 and 4 from
the list of articles that applies to unoriginal photographs; therefore
such photos are not protected against derivative works!
There is a Finnish case (cited in Per Jonas Nordell, Rätten till det
visuella, p. 111) in which the Finnish supreme court ruled that a
painting, that had quite faithfully copied the subject of a photographic
picture, was not an copy of the photographic picture and therefore did
not infringe upon the copyright in the photographic picture (HD 1979 II
64). The painting was quite clearly an adaptation of the photographic
picture, but that was not enough (under Finnish law).
The term "derivative work" has in fact a more "narrow" scope in Europe
(IMO) than in the U.S. In the U.S. a derivative work can be anything
from an edited or cropped version of a work to a translation of the
work. In Europe a derivative work must be an original work of authorship
in itself. While the required level of originality is lower than for
independent works the originality requirement is definitely still there.
Under European law edited works are copies - not derivatives, and thus
fully under the domain of the copyright holder.
It should be noted that it is, IMO, fully possible to escape the scope
of a photographic picture by altering it so that the original picture is
not readily identifiable as the origin of the new picture. You could for
example cut up a several pictures in small enough pieces and use those
pieces to create a collage, without infringing upon anyone's copyright.
Or you could cut out the skyline from one picture and use it in your own
picture.
The distinction between original and unoriginal photographs does of
course have an effect on the usage of the CC-license. An end user of an
unoriginal photograph, who lives in Finland, Sweden, France or any other
country which jurisdiction makes a difference between original and
unoriginal photos, doesn't need a CC-license if he wants to adapt such
a photo – he does need the license if he wants to use the photo as is or
in an edited form.
/Peter Brink
More information about the cc-licenses
mailing list