Copyright of Facts

[Alex Nicolaou]

Angelo Schneider wrote:

> Alex Nicolaou wrote:

> > If I take a photograph, I am clearly permitted to copyright it - it is
> > "art", and its composition reflects how I chose to record the facts (the
> > real objects in the photograph). It is difficult or impossible for
> > someone else to take the same photograph in the same conditions, so if
> > someone else claims to have taken an identical picture it would be easy
> > to win my case in court.
> 
> What do you want to win in court?
> 
> Your photo is yours! So every reprint or whtsoever is copyrightred by
> you.
> 
> But HIS PHOTO IS HIS!
> There is no case in court!!!!!
> There is nothing to win!!!!!!!

If his photo is absolutely identical to mine I would claim in court that
he produced it by duplicating mine, and not by taking a photograph. I
would use the fact that it is extremely unlikely that he succeeded in
taking an identical photo, since the clouds, dirt, and lighting are
impossible to reproduce. I don't wish to stop someone from taking a
photo; I wish to stop someone from claiming that my photo is his.

> Copyright is regardless of "art" or not.

My understanding is that copyright only applies to creative work, so the
question of whether something is art is important: establishing that it
is art makes it copyrightable without question.

alex