但是我必須提醒的是必須在*約定的範圍內*.樓主對衍生出來的B跟C.是沒有權力去主張他的權利的..
此案件是樓主並未授權衍生著作權..我認為這是重點..樓主授權的是原始圖檔的使用.並有限定使用範圍..
再看第一頁樓主提出的海報第2張..這張海報是該電影公司參加洛城影展的前導海報.明顯看出並無該建案在內.是由原始圖檔修改而成的.
PS..請大家不要再提45機的問題..畢竟與此樓無關..謝謝大家的合作
如過風景照是無著作權論處...那前陣子一張天價1.4億台幣風景照..買的人就確實病的不輕.
Hsin Huang wrote:
借 SilaSea加...(恕刪)
又跳針了
前面你自己才說的
侵害著作權的要件=>實質相似性忘了嗎?
Substantial Similarity
To establish a claim of copyright infringement, courts require that a plaintiff prove, first, that he owns a valid copyright in a work and, second, that the defendant copied original elements of that work. Id. at 340, 111 S.Ct. at 1296. The plaintiff can prove copying either directly or indirectly, by establishing that the defendant had access, and produced something “substantially similar,” to the copyrighted work. Original Appalachian Artworks, Inc. v. Toy Loft, Inc., 684 F.2d 821, 829 (11th Cir.1982). Access to copyrighted material, as element of copyright infringement, simply requires proof of a “reasonable opportunity to view” the work in question. Herzog v. Castle Rock Entertainment, 193 F.3d 1241, 1249 (11th Cir. 1999).
Substantial similarity “exists where an average lay observer would recognize the alleged copy as having been appropriated from the copyrighted work.” Id. Substantial similarity, the general standard for copyright infringement, occupies a non-quantifiable value on the legal spectrum between no similarity and identicalness. Warren Publ’g, Inc. v. Microdos Data Corp., 115 F.3d 1509, 1516 n. 19 (11th Cir. 1997). See also 4 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 13.03(A) (2006). While the works need not be identical to find for infringement, there must be sufficient congruence between the original elements of the copyrighted work and the copied work such that a reasonable jury could find
從這二張作品看來
我是看不出來與樓主的照片具有實質相似性
http://powerslide.artistswanted.org/exposure2011
powerslide wrote:
Substantial similarity “exists where an average lay observer would recognize the alleged copy as having been appropriated from the copyrighted work.”
Seriously..
If an average guy cannot see the Substantial similarity from the above picture has to be blind or brain damaged.
It's so clear!!
powerslide wrote:
While the works need not be identical to find for infringement, there must be sufficient congruence between the original elements of the copyrighted work and the copied work such that a reasonable jury could find
well. now you need to find that jury and put him/she on the stand!
Cudacke Dees wrote:
...(恕刪)
又有人愛跳針了
前面已經說過很多遍了
殘念
就算是在你最愛的美國法也是一樣的
不許就單一作品切割部分主張著作權
Disagree about a cropping "wormhole". A crop is a separate work -- if that work violates copyright, then we would not allow the crop on Commons. We cannot control what other people do. For one example, there are French cases where photos of an entire plaza are not copyright violations, even if a photo of one particular building would be. In that situation, making a crop of a photo like that (to focus on a building or included sculpture) could definitely result in a copyright violation even if the original is not -- and I would emphatically not support trying to lower the allowed resolution on such photos.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:De_minimis
更何況那些建築物的外觀是建築師的創作
甘樓主何事？
http://powerslide.artistswanted.org/exposure2011
內文搜尋
從 APP 打開
X