I had trouble determining if this was satire or not. Its a picture of a VHS cassette and not a particularly interesting one. Im not saying that he shouldn't get attribution for his work, but this is also generic enough as to not be a unique work of art.
If the VHS tape looks generic, it's because the photographer did a good job. Lens choice, tripod, angle, lighting, post processing, publishing hi-res version. That is work.
I've done plenty of "generic" photo shoots that I've needed to re-shoot because something such as minor reflection or details are wrong.
The US does not have a "sweat of the brow" law. It's irrelevant how much work it took. All that matters is if there is creativity, vs simply mechanical reproduction.
This is such a weird objection (and it's occurring all over the thread, not just here). By the same logic, do you think you're entitled to any commercial stock photo, so long as it's "generic" or "mechanical" enough?
> By the same logic, do you think you're entitled to any commercial stock photo, so long as it's "generic" or "mechanical" enough?
Yes, obviously.
For example a simple direct photo of artwork has no copyright to the photographer. It doesn't matter if the person claims copyright - they don't have it.
There are tons of things people claim copyright to, without actually having that legal right. These photos of a VHS tape fall in that category - they do not meet the threshold of originality, because there is none. It is simply a mechanical photo of an object.
Copyright is a legal right, not a natural right. It's only given in specific circumstances.
Just because you did work, even if it was really hard, and you did a lot of work, does not mean you get copyright. That's simply not the legal standard.
You seem very confident about this. I think you're wrong. Can you show either a statute or a court case in which it was decided that a photograph --- a work explicitly designated as copyrightable since at least the Copyright Act of 1870 --- was found not to be protected by copyright due to insufficient originality?
For the countervailing evidence, you might check out the footnotes in Ets-Hokin v Skyy Spirits.
One of the components of creativity is sweat of the brow work. Without that, creativity is unrealised.
Photography is often mechanical reproduction. My picture of the moon will look similar to millions of others. Does that mean you'd take my picture of the moon and use it commercially without asking me first? I would take issue with that!
The way the light falls on that VHS tape may have been a perfect match for the design brief. In which case, something other than mechanical reproduction is involved in signing off on the product artwork.
That says the symbols themselves can't be copyrighted, so that for instance you can't go after someone for photographing or painting a stop sign. It does not say that photographs of familiar symbols and designs can't be copyrighted.
