|
|
Posted by Bill on 12/05/06 19:46
I believed the owners are asserting otherwise.
Pardon me-- I'll take my lumps. Not for photographs. But...
their assertions of copyright relate to motion pictures, not still
images, as far as I know. The makers of King Kong paid for the rights
to use the building in the film, whatever exactly that means in terms of
copyright.
While searching, found this-- a good primer for anyone who believes we
should all cave the minute someone jumps up and shouts "copyright".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_City_Studios,_Inc._v._Nintendo_Co.,_Ltd.
For those who like straw men, to repeat: I am not opposed to copyright.
Just the excessive, unreasonable, authoritarian abuse of the idea.
PTravel wrote:
> You certainly can use a picture of the Empire State Building:
>
> 17 U.S.C. § 120. Scope of exclusive rights in architectural works
> (a) Pictorial representations permitted. The copyright in an architectural
> work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the
> making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs,
> or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the
> work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|