If I take your picture, your image belongs to me. So it follows that if I take a picture of your picture, that also belongs to me.
Isn't copyright a wonderfully logical instrument?
If I take your picture, your image belongs to me. So it follows that if I take a picture of your picture, that also belongs to me.
Isn't copyright a wonderfully logical instrument?
This prompts me to think of the case where instead of taking a photo-of-a-photo, one takes a "series of photos in rapid succession of a series of photos also in rapid succession", a la taking a camcorder into a movie theater.
As was pointed out in the article, only if its transformative in some way does copyright give you cover under the "fair use" doctrine:
Prince’s appropriation was “transformative” enough to qualify for fair use. In the words of the presiding judge: “[Prince’s] work adds new meaning...and the fair use doctrine guarantees [him] breathing space.”
A simple picture of a picture without alteration would still be considered infringement under the current copyright laws.
Ever seen it happen IRL? Got a link?