作者不是作者:从王尔德到加西亚的摄影主题的版权利益

Eva E. Subotnik
{"title":"作者不是作者:从王尔德到加西亚的摄影主题的版权利益","authors":"Eva E. Subotnik","doi":"10.7916/D8TX3FSM","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Toward the end of his dissent in Garcia v. Google, Judge Alex Kozinski remarked that “[w]hen modern works, such as films or plays, are produced, contributors will often create separate, copyrightable works as part of the process.” Judge Kozinski’s characterization of plays (or even films) as “modern works” opens the door to an examination of that claim with respect to another genre of modern work: the photograph. This essay focuses on the treatment of claimed authorial contributions by photographic subjects to the photographs in which they are portrayed. It traces the analysis of this issue from the early photography cases (and provides the relevant litigated images) to present times. What emerges is a forceful line of precedent that largely did not consider, accept, or emphasize a photographic subject’s authorial contributions to a finished photographic image. Coming full circle, I argue that longstanding judicial instincts on this front may help explain the outcome in the Garcia case.","PeriodicalId":222420,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Author Was Not an Author: The Copyright Interests of Photographic Subjects from Wilde to Garcia\",\"authors\":\"Eva E. Subotnik\",\"doi\":\"10.7916/D8TX3FSM\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Toward the end of his dissent in Garcia v. Google, Judge Alex Kozinski remarked that “[w]hen modern works, such as films or plays, are produced, contributors will often create separate, copyrightable works as part of the process.” Judge Kozinski’s characterization of plays (or even films) as “modern works” opens the door to an examination of that claim with respect to another genre of modern work: the photograph. This essay focuses on the treatment of claimed authorial contributions by photographic subjects to the photographs in which they are portrayed. It traces the analysis of this issue from the early photography cases (and provides the relevant litigated images) to present times. What emerges is a forceful line of precedent that largely did not consider, accept, or emphasize a photographic subject’s authorial contributions to a finished photographic image. Coming full circle, I argue that longstanding judicial instincts on this front may help explain the outcome in the Garcia case.\",\"PeriodicalId\":222420,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7916/D8TX3FSM\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7916/D8TX3FSM","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

法官亚历克斯·科辛斯基(Alex Kozinski)在对加西亚诉谷歌案(Garcia v.谷歌)提出异议的最后表示,“在制作现代作品(如电影或戏剧)时,贡献者通常会创作单独的、受版权保护的作品,作为这一过程的一部分。”科津斯基法官将戏剧(甚至电影)定性为“现代作品”,这为审视另一种现代作品类型——照片——的这种说法打开了一扇门。这篇文章的重点是处理声称的作者贡献的摄影题材的照片中,他们被描绘。从早期的摄影案件(并提供相关的诉讼图像)到现在,对这一问题的分析进行了追溯。出现的是一条强有力的先例线,在很大程度上没有考虑、接受或强调摄影主体对完成的摄影图像的作者贡献。兜了一圈,我认为长期以来在这方面的司法本能可能有助于解释加西亚案的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Author Was Not an Author: The Copyright Interests of Photographic Subjects from Wilde to Garcia
Toward the end of his dissent in Garcia v. Google, Judge Alex Kozinski remarked that “[w]hen modern works, such as films or plays, are produced, contributors will often create separate, copyrightable works as part of the process.” Judge Kozinski’s characterization of plays (or even films) as “modern works” opens the door to an examination of that claim with respect to another genre of modern work: the photograph. This essay focuses on the treatment of claimed authorial contributions by photographic subjects to the photographs in which they are portrayed. It traces the analysis of this issue from the early photography cases (and provides the relevant litigated images) to present times. What emerges is a forceful line of precedent that largely did not consider, accept, or emphasize a photographic subject’s authorial contributions to a finished photographic image. Coming full circle, I argue that longstanding judicial instincts on this front may help explain the outcome in the Garcia case.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信