Derivative movie rotoscoping, part 2

On Nov 17, 7:49 am, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
> That got me to wondering about another hypothetical. You take a
> photograph of a mountain. I take that picture and making a painting
> from it (not by tracing but by simply looking at the picture and
> painting the mountain.)

You're making a derivative work which is based on copying someone else's original creative work into another medium.  Sorry, that's infringement if you don't have permission from the original copyright holder.

> I could have EASILY painted the mountain by standing with
> an easel, etc. at the same place where you stood and painted it
> directly.

But you _DIDN'T_ do that.   You painted a copy of his photo instead.

Non-legal aside: Apparently you are oblivious to the fact that a photo freeze-captures a unique moment in time and space, something that will never be repeated, and that the scene the camera was aimed at is constantly changing.  So actually, you CAN'T go to the place where the photographer took his photo and get the exact same result from his original, natural inspiration.   If I went to Yosemite, pointed my camera (or painter's easel) at Half Dome and took a bunch of snapshots, they would not come out looking anything at all like something Ansel Adams may have taken, even if I stood at the exact same spot as the master when I clicked the button.  IIRC Adams would often spend hours at the scene waiting to get everything just right, before making an exposure.  The constantly moving and changing branches of trees, angle of the sunlight based on the time of day and time of year, the pattern of clouds, the focal length and exposure time, the choice of film and emulsion and developing methods, all play a part in getting exactly the composition the artist wants to include in his photo and make it a unique original.   Even in more mundane contexts, e.g. fashion photography in a studio, the pro photographer may take hundreds of shots of basically the same scene (girl, clothes, prop) to get just one or two that have that "je ne seis quoi" that qualifies it to be printed in a magazine.  The rest are basically outtakes, trash.   And you want to get to the charismatic, attention-grabbing final result without going thru all that work the original artist did, just by copying the best, most appealing fraction of his work?  How is that not infringement?

> Could it be argued that I did not infringe on your photo?

Could it?  Sure, you can argue anything you want.   But IMO that argument would not be reasonable, nor would it likely be successful if you got sued for infringement.

--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a private communication.

Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685      (fax) 410-740-4300