I'd be very grateful if anyone here could give me any advice on the
following copyright dilemma...

From the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48)

63.—(1) It is not an infringement of copyright in an artistic work
to copy it, or to issue copies to the public, for the purpose of
advertising the sale of the work.

So if dealer "X" is trying to sell an artistic work, and photographs
the work to use the photographs in his advertising material, he does
not infringe copyright. But who owns the copyright in the photographs?
Is it the original copyright holder only, the dealer only, or is it
shared between them?

Suppose another dealer, "Y", thinks he'll have better luck in selling
the work, and he copies dealer X's photographs for use in his own
marketing. Has he infringed copyright? If so, whose and why? (Or if
not, why not?)

Suppose the situation was slightly different, and the copyright holder
gave had taken photographs of the work himself and he gave these to
dealer to use in advertising, would this make dealer Y's behaviour any
more or less of an infringement?

Thanks.

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 17:15:07 +0100, Robb Masters put finger to
keyboard and typed:

I'd be very grateful if anyone here could give me any advice on the
following copyright dilemma...

From the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48)

63.—(1) It is not an infringement of copyright in an artistic work
to copy it, or to issue copies to the public, for the purpose of
advertising the sale of the work.

So if dealer "X" is trying to sell an artistic work, and photographs
the work to use the photographs in his advertising material, he does
not infringe copyright. But who owns the copyright in the photographs?
Is it the original copyright holder only, the dealer only, or is it
shared between them?

There are two separate copyrights involved he the copyright on the
original artwork and the copyright on the photographs of the artwork.
The photographer owns the copyright of the photos, but, as the photo
is of another copyright work, he may only use those photos for
permitted purposes (such as those mentioned above).

On a more general note, it's quite common for a published work (under
the definitions used for copyright) to have multiple copyrights within
it. A TV programme, for example, is copyright in its entirety, but
also contains individually copyright items such as the theme tune and
other incidental music (or non-incidental music, in the case of shows
like Top of the Pops). Copying the programme is an infringement of the
programme-maker's copyright, irrespective of whether the programme
itself is making permitted use of other copyright material. In fact, a
set of photos of an artwork is probably quite a close analogy to the
situation of a music show on TV - both are derivative works with their
own copyright, but both rely on copyright permission from the source
in order to be published.

Suppose another dealer, "Y", thinks he'll have better luck in selling
the work, and he copies dealer X's photographs for use in his own
marketing. Has he infringed copyright? If so, whose and why? (Or if
not, why not?)

Yes. He has infringed the copyright of the owner of the photographs.
He may, however, make his own photographs if he so wishes (assuming he
has access to the original in order to photograph it) and use those
instead, provided of course that he only uses them for permitted
purposes.

Suppose the situation was slightly different, and the copyright holder
gave had taken photographs of the work himself and he gave these to
dealer to use in advertising, would this make dealer Y's behaviour any
more or less of an infringement?

If Y was using them with the express or implied permission of the
owner, then it's OK. If not, then it's still infringement.

Mark
--
-- http://photos.markshouse.net - see my world! --
"Too sweet to be sour too nice to be mean"

"Mark Goodge" wrote in message
house.net...
Yes. He has infringed the copyright of the owner of the photographs.
He may, however, make his own photographs if he so wishes (assuming he
has access to the original in order to photograph it) and use those
instead, provided of course that he only uses them for permitted
purposes.

This raises an interesting point to me; if I want to sell my house, many
estate agents would be more than happy to come round to photograph my house
so that they can advertise it in their shop window, the local press and
possible on their websites. So according to you, they will own the copyright
for the photos they take, however, I assume the copyright for the design of
my house belongs to an architect somewhere (or maybe the house builder). So
are you saying that the/(all?) estate agents are breaking copyright laws
unless they get express permission from the architect?

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 16:55:39 +0100, Clueless put finger to keyboard
and typed:

"Mark Goodge" wrote in message
shouse.net...
Yes. He has infringed the copyright of the owner of the photographs.
He may, however, make his own photographs if he so wishes (assuming he
has access to the original in order to photograph it) and use those
instead, provided of course that he only uses them for permitted
purposes.

This raises an interesting point to me; if I want to sell my house, many
estate agents would be more than happy to come round to photograph my house
so that they can advertise it in their shop window, the local press and
possible on their websites. So according to you, they will own the copyright
for the photos they take, however, I assume the copyright for the design of
my house belongs to an architect somewhere (or maybe the house builder). So
are you saying that the/(all?) estate agents are breaking copyright laws
unless they get express permission from the architect?

The plans and blueprints of your house are the copyright of the
architect or designer, yes. But the house itself isn't subject to
copyright, as it's a functional article rather than an artistic work.
To quote the government website:

Copyright does not protect ideas, names or titles, or
functional or industrial articles

http://www.intellectual-property.gov..._protected.htm

If the house was of a particularly unique design, then that design
could be registered and thus prevent anyone else from building
identical houses. But there's no copyright which would stop someone
taking a photo of it and publishing that photo.

Mark
--
-- http://www.FridayFun.net - jokes, games and ringtones! --
"Viens vivre un Amour Suprême"

Clueless wrote on Wed, 14 Jul 2004 16:55:39 +0100....
This raises an interesting point to me; if I want to sell my house, many
estate agents would be more than happy to come round to photograph my house
so that they can advertise it in their shop window, the local press and
possible on their websites. So according to you, they will own the copyright
for the photos they take, however, I assume the copyright for the design of
my house belongs to an architect somewhere (or maybe the house builder). So
are you saying that the/(all?) estate agents are breaking copyright laws
unless they get express permission from the architect?

No. Taking photographs of buildings (and issuing copies of the
photographs to the public) is explicitly permitted by Section 62 of
the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act.

--
Tim Jackson
lid
(Change '.invalid' to '.co.uk' to reply direct)
Absurd patents: visit http://www.patent.freeserve.co.uk

Mark Goodge wrote on Wed, 14 Jul 2004 19:05:08 +0100....
The plans and blueprints of your house are the copyright of the
architect or designer, yes. But the house itself isn't subject to
copyright, as it's a functional article rather than an artistic work.
To quote the government website:

Copyright does not protect ideas, names or titles, or
functional or industrial articles

http://www.intellectual-property.gov..._protected.htm

If the house was of a particularly unique design, then that design
could be registered and thus prevent anyone else from building
identical houses. But there's no copyright which would stop someone
taking a photo of it and publishing that photo.

Works of architecture (buildings and models of buildings) are defined
in the Copyright etc Act as being a type of artistic work (section 4
(1)(b)). They are protected by copyright as works in their own right,
separately from any plans and blueprints which might exist, and
without the need for registration. I think a fairly ordinary house
would qualify, as long as it was original in the copyright sense, i.e.
not copied from elsewhere. Taking a photo of it would then be likely
to infringe, were it not for section 62 (see separate post).

--
Tim Jackson
lid
(Change '.invalid' to '.co.uk' to reply direct)
Absurd patents: visit http://www.patent.freeserve.co.uk

In article ,
lid says...
Mark Goodge wrote on Wed, 14 Jul 2004 19:05:08 +0100....
The plans and blueprints of your house are the copyright of the
architect or designer, yes. But the house itself isn't subject to
copyright, as it's a functional article rather than an artistic work.
To quote the government website:

Copyright does not protect ideas, names or titles, or
functional or industrial articles

http://www.intellectual-property.gov..._protected.htm

If the house was of a particularly unique design, then that design
could be registered and thus prevent anyone else from building
identical houses. But there's no copyright which would stop someone
taking a photo of it and publishing that photo.

Works of architecture (buildings and models of buildings) are defined
in the Copyright etc Act as being a type of artistic work (section 4
(1)(b)). They are protected by copyright as works in their own right,
separately from any plans and blueprints which might exist, and
without the need for registration. I think a fairly ordinary house
would qualify, as long as it was original in the copyright sense, i.e.
not copied from elsewhere.

Not quite. There are a number of tests, basically assessing what might
be called the 'artistic creativity and substance' of the work before it
gets copyright protection.

Just as you can't copyright "The cat sat on the mat", you can't copyright
a mundane piece of architectu it has to have some artistic content.

Look out Meikle v Maufe [1941] 3 All ER 144, which was the seminal case
that caused the insertion of the provision for the copyright in works by
a contractor to be inserted into the Copyright Act.

Taking a photo of it would then be likely
to infringe,

Taking a picture, whether a photograph or a sketch or a painting or
whatever of a thing that is subject to copyright is not 'copying' it.
Consider taking a photo of a printed page but such that the text was
indecipherable.

were it not for section 62 (see separate post).

John

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:40:10 +0100, John Allan
wrote:

Not quite. There are a number of tests, basically assessing what might
be called the 'artistic creativity and substance' of the work before it
gets copyright protection.

Just as you can't copyright "The cat sat on the mat", you can't copyright
a mundane piece of architectu it has to have some artistic content.

How did Microsoft copyright "What are you going to do today?" (or
whatever it was) then?

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 18:30:11 +0100, IanAl put finger to keyboard and
typed:

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:40:10 +0100, John Allan
wrote:

Not quite. There are a number of tests, basically assessing what might
be called the 'artistic creativity and substance' of the work before it
gets copyright protection.

Just as you can't copyright "The cat sat on the mat", you can't copyright
a mundane piece of architectu it has to have some artistic content.

How did Microsoft copyright "What are you going to do today?" (or
whatever it was) then?

They didn't. They registered it as a trademark. Copyright and
Trademarks are not the same thing.

Mark
--
-- http://photos.markshouse.net - see my world! --
"Wouldn't you love somebody to love?"

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 18:30:11 +0100, IanAl wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:40:10 +0100, John Allan
wrote:

Not quite. There are a number of tests, basically assessing what might
be called the 'artistic creativity and substance' of the work before it
gets copyright protection.

Just as you can't copyright "The cat sat on the mat", you can't copyright
a mundane piece of architectu it has to have some artistic content.

How did Microsoft copyright "What are you going to do today?" (or
whatever it was) then?

Its a trademark, not copyrighted. In other examples, you'll find that
McDonalds have trademarked "I'm Lovin' It" in dozens of different
languages

Brian