Re: [photo-3d] copyright or copy-wrong?

[Mike Kersenbrock <michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Hans A.J. Middendorp" wrote:

> But I cant appreciate/understand why somebody,  who converted a work of art
> of somebody else (in the public domain or not), and probably with the help
> of software he did not create himself (asuming that it is a he), can claim
> copyright over these things.

Such a copyright is on the "value added" portion of the result,
a composite product.  Anyone else is free to start with the same
public domain material and re-do the same work (there may be some
restrictions on not using the other work as a guide that's being
copied -- better if it's not known about). 

The basic concept really is quite simple.  The idea is not to have
someone do a pile of work, and have others enjoy the fruits of
that labor without just compensation (unless it was wanted or intended
to be "given away").  The rest are derivatives of how-business-is-done,
etc.

Mike K.

P.S. - I don't think projection was suggested to be a possible copyright
       violation.  I think it was the assumed making of film copies of
       the book's images.  For all we know, in Japan where the book is
       from, they sell a set of slides of the same images so making
       one's own copies is depriving the artist revenue from some possible
       sales (saying that one wouldn't have bought a copy doesn't work
       for those who copy commercial software from their friends, so I don't
       think it'd work here either, even if true).  Mind you (wink) I don't
       think it a practical problem, mostly an academic one.

P.P.S. - Whether the software tools used to generate a piece of art was
         written by them or not isn't really relevant either.  Many great
         artists of the world probably didn't make their own paintbrushes,
         make their own paint, make their own chisels, etc. but the result
         is still theirs.  It isn't a matter of opening a software program
         and punching a "make-3d" button.  :-)