Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2019/05/01/copyrighted-architecture.html
…
1 Like
After the extremely lopsided concern for Notre Dame over other more distressing incidents around the world, I’m afraid I’m not particularly upset at this result.
6 Likes
If they block this proposal image I’ll be ok with it. Really.
1 Like
Mohammad has a possé, and it is copyright.
1 Like
More info on copyrighted architecture and “illegal” photos using the Eiffel Tower at night as the main example:
2 Likes
The logical endpoint of all this will be the world turning into something like Ul Qoma and Besźel from Mieville’s “The City & the City”, where large parts of our environment have to be ignored because they’ve been copyrighted by some large corporation. With enough training, I’m sure citizens can learn not to “see” the elements in question, and thus avoid violating these important copyrights.
12 Likes
I feel like at least one sane court in the US would argue that attaching lights to an existing building is derivative and doesn’t constitute a new work. The lights can’t exist in that shape without the building. That’s like throwing paint at the Mona Lisa and claiming a new copyright on the paint splatter.
2 Likes
Derivative works still have their own copyright.
It’s copyrights all the way down.
3 Likes
Not always.
To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a “new work” or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself.
1 Like
Dome? Notre Dame hasn’t had a dome.
1 Like
hunch, dome … same thing.
3 Likes
It wasn’t a dome. It was a spire or, more precisely, a flèche.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
