電影『痞子英雄首部曲：全面開戰』電影海報，已圓滿解決 (第122頁)

powerslide
個人積分：308分
文章編號：32975870

308分

1211樓

2011-12-30 7:23

aloke wrote:
因為都是拍是 "物" 而不是 "景"，所以如果現在說的是 "物"，依這些判例看，

商業攝影中單純的 "產品去背攝影" 其實是不被著作權法保護的嗎 ... 0rz||

這樣公司請商業攝影師拍照時，還要簽授權合約或著作權歸屬的合約之類的，其實都是簽心安的嗎 ?

很難想像那些名牌產品的影像不被認定成 "攝影著作"，還是說像 DIOR、CARTIER、CHANEL 那些攝影師拍得比較好(或者那些東西比較難拍)，所以那些"去背產品照片" 就受著作權法保護，而拍得比較不好的攝影師 (或者正好是拍比較好拍的東西)，法律就不保護了 ?

如果要以風格來做判斷標準，大部分的時候我們也無法判斷哪些商業影像是出自哪個攝影師之手...

所以實際的狀況真的會是這樣 ?? (哇...應該很少商業攝影師能接受這樣的標準吧

這二個判決並沒有說商業攝影不能成為攝影著作喔

請再看清楚

重點在以下這段話

對該等主題之構圖、角度、光量、速度有何選擇及調整，或進行
何種底片修改之攝影、顯像及沖洗時達到何種具體表現出作者獨
立思想或感情之表現而具有個性或獨特性之程度

簡單講,就是單純按快門,不被認為是攝影著作

但是除了按快門之外,還有布置,燈光調控,影像處理,角度選擇....

且足以表現攝影者獨特之個性

即可認為攝影著作

至於為什麼要這樣做

也很簡單

因為著作權保障的是創意

不是那張照片的所有權

至於業主跟攝影師簽的合約

只不過是取得圖片使用權罷了

未必就代表其就此當然取得著作權

重點還是看其是否具有創意而有以著作權保障之必要

Hsin Huang

Hsin Huang
個人積分：45分
文章編號：32976011

45分

1212樓

2011-12-30 7:55

Disagree, catch the moment, when you click the shutter, your photo is been created by your own creatation, single building may have room in gray are. but the city view will be under the public asset, I'll feel really bad if Taiwan's copyright law is follow by Mr. P his translation.

powerslide

powerslide
個人積分：308分
文章編號：32976343

308分

1213樓

2011-12-30 8:35

Hsin Huang wrote:
Disagree, catch the moment, when you click the shutter, your photo is been created by your own creatation, single building may have room in gray are. but the city view will be under the public asset, I'll feel really bad if Taiwan's copyright law is follow by Mr. P his translation.

在美國法也是一樣啦

原創性是世界上著作權法通行的基本原則

Originality

The originality requirement is not stringent:A work is original in the copyright sense if it owes its origin to the author and was not copied from some preexisting work. A work can be original without being novel or unique.
Example: Betsy's book How to Lose Weight is original in the copyright sense so long as Betsy did not create her book by copying existing material - even if it's the millionth book to be written on the subject of weight loss.

Only minimal creativity is required to meet the originality requirement. No artistic merit or beauty is required.

A work can incorporate preexisting material and still be original. When preexisting material is incorporated into a new work, the copyright on the new work covers only the original material contributed by the author.

http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/241476.html

Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.

Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), was a decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which ruled that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright in the United States because the copies lack originality. Even if accurate reproductions require a great deal of skill, experience and effort, the key element for copyrightability under U.S. law is that copyrighted material must show sufficient originality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.

Originality

Contrary to popular belief (ie. what I used to think), copyright doesn't protect an idea, it only protects your particular expression of an idea. That is, you can't get copyright protection for the idea of a love story, and then stop others from writing love stories. You can only get protection for your particular version of a love story, the one you actually create with its own characters, dialogue, events, and happy ending. The idea, of course, is to prevent someone from getting copyright protection on something that is so generic that it prevents people from making their own artwork revolving around that same generic theme. In the context of the visual arts, this means that by painting, filming, or shooting something like an apple, you can't then prevent everyone else from also working with apples. In other words, this idea/expression dichotomy is set up to prevent people from monopolizing ideas and stifling creativity.

The thing that separates an idea from an individual's expression of that idea is originality. It's what you, as the creative person that you are, add to the idea to make it your own. It's what makes your work art and not just a recitation of the generic past. Most important for copyright, it's that originality that's protected.

http://blog.ayrlaw.com/2011/02/hey-photographers-what-does-your-copyright-protect/

originality

Originality is a perquisite for copyright protection for certain works under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 UK. It is requirement that literary, artistic, dramatic, and musical works be original in order to qualify for copyright protection.

Originality is satisfied where the copyright work in question is the work of the author and not a copy of another's creation, and the work to the extent that it draws on existing material, exhibits more than trivial or negligible skill in its creation. The level of skill and labour required to satisfy the requirement of originality is generally satisfied provided that the creation of the work is not a purely mechanical exercise.

http://www.gillhams.com/dictionary/369.cfm

Hsin Huang

Hsin Huang
個人積分：45分
文章編號：32977017

45分

1214樓

2011-12-30 9:17

powerslide wrote:
在美國法也是一樣啦原...(恕刪)

Maybe and maybe not...

google "its golden gate bridge photo under copyright protection"?

Idea Copyright
An artist's work is their own. There are more than a half-million images of the Golden Gate Bridge on Flickr, but each is unique to a specific photographer. It is possible for someone to try to recreate a more stylized or studio shot that is truly an original concept, but the infringement can be challenged, and it would be up to a court to decide on the degree of similarity between the works.

If it does not belong to you, it is not yours. If you take it, you are stealing. A simple, moral idea that is often betrayed. Copyright laws protect an artist's work. Writers need to protect their words; photographers need to protect their images. The laws may appear to be complex, but the rules are basic.

Read more: Photography Copyright Laws | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/facts_5297841_photography-copyright-laws.html#ixzz1hyaMTXK4

powerslide

powerslide
個人積分：308分
文章編號：32977358

308分

1215樓

2011-12-30 9:34

Hsin Huang wrote:
Idea Copyright
An artist's work is their own. There are more than a half-million images of the Golden Gate Bridge on Flickr, but each is unique to a specific photographer. It is possible for someone to try to recreate a more stylized or studio shot that is truly an original concept, but the infringement can be challenged, and it would be up to a court to decide on the degree of similarity between the works.

您說到重點了

既然著作權侵犯的判斷在於相似性

那麼我前面指出那麼多衍生著作與原始著作在角度/構圖/光影/色調上的不同

不都在說明此點嗎

Hsin Huang

Hsin Huang
個人積分：45分
文章編號：32978093

45分

1216樓

2011-12-30 10:05

powerslide wrote:
您說到重點了既然著作...(恕刪)

The poster is base on the "re-duplcation" first and modified the lighting, building size, and color tone; I think we all got your point, but we have to wait and see what the court says.

阿凱

阿凱
個人積分：908分
文章編號：32978105

908分

1217樓

2011-12-30 10:05

看了p大的論點之後
我覺得非常恐怖
如果要這樣硬凹
鑽法律漏洞
這樣創作者的權益何在呢？
版主的照片看也知道不是按下快門就可以拍出來的
建商的改作也是取自於版主的照片
如果ps兩下就要硬凹成新的創作

請問
誰還需要這種著作權？

希望法官可以做出公正且合乎期待的判決
也希望不是所有台灣的律師都是這種嘴臉

powerslide

powerslide
個人積分：308分
文章編號：32978367

308分

1218樓

2011-12-30 10:15

阿凱 wrote:
建商的改作也是取自於版主的照片
如果ps兩下就要硬凹成新的創作

你也可以拿樓主的圖去ＰＳ二下

然後告訴大家PS比拍照還簡單

xsoho

xsoho
個人積分：109分
文章編號：32978684

109分

1219樓

2011-12-30 10:27

阿凱 wrote:
鑽法律漏洞...(恕刪)

這是鑽法律漏洞，還是按照法律規定呢?

對『鑽法律漏洞』感到憤慨是不是一樣也代表選擇對自己有利的立場，只是反方也有他的立場，是不是都是一樣的意思勒

dawsonliu

dawsonliu
個人積分：14分
文章編號：32979514

14分

1220樓

2011-12-30 10:56

每次有人歪樓，就要再貼一下賴文智律師的連結
企業法務著作權須知-誰有權授權？由痞子英雄首部曲宣傳海報爭議談起

注意重點:
有關於改作，著作權法第6條規定：「Ⅰ就原著作改作之創作為衍生著作，以獨立之著作保護之。Ⅱ衍生著作之保護，對原著作之著作權不生影響。」前述條文的規定，經常引發一般對著作權法不熟悉的民眾的誤解，以為只要是就原著作進行改作，改作的成果會受到著作權法以獨立著作的保護，所以，可以獨立利用。事實上，細繹前開著作權法規定，第1項說明的重點在於若是對於著作施以有創意的改作（改作依著作權法定義是指以翻譯、編曲、改寫、拍攝影片或其他方法就原著作另為創作，若非屬創作活動則並非改作行為），因著作權法乃是保護創作活動的成果，改作既然是創作活動的成果，當然會給予保護，只不過，著作權法所給予的保護也僅針對該改作的部分，並不會因為賦予一個獨立的改作著作的著作權，就使得原著作的著作權受到影響，這也是為何第2項要特別說明的原因。

我覺得大家討論都已各說各話又無限循還，
想討論相關著作權可以另外開樓討論，
冗餘無益的詭辯不是樓主想要的,
現在應該讓檢查官來認定是否有侵權吧~