tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post113105164779331849..comments2024-03-15T11:42:21.265-04:00Comments on The Patry Copyright Blog: Statutory DamagesWilliam Patryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-1131229942275662522005-11-05T17:32:00.000-05:002005-11-05T17:32:00.000-05:00I agree with Anonymous' analysis, and that's why I...I agree with Anonymous' analysis, and that's why I think Coogan is incorrectly decided and a good subject for discussion since it teases out an interesting point.William Patryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-1131145864105968372005-11-04T18:11:00.000-05:002005-11-04T18:11:00.000-05:00With a limited exception, I would say that each ph...With a limited exception, I would say that each photograph stands as its own work. When multiple works of the same subject are taken, the "derivation" is from the subject matter and not from a prior work. One way to analogize this might be to compare a poet who writes ten poems based on his response to the same sunset to a poet who writes one poem and later writes nine more based on the original poem. The ten poems in the first case are not derivative works whereas the nine in the second case would be. The limited exception I would make in the case of photographs would be when a photographer has a camera on a tripod and takes several exposures of a static subject (i.e., in camera duplicates_.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-1131134525828570712005-11-04T15:02:00.000-05:002005-11-04T15:02:00.000-05:00Anonymous:The catalog cases or other compilations ...Anonymous:<BR/><BR/>The catalog cases or other compilations consisting of literary material and pictorial works like photographs present, I think, a good illustration of hopw Section 504(c)(1) is supposed to work. What makes Coogan interesting for me is that there was no compilation, but a group registration. The court fixated on that, I think erroneously, bot from the purpose for the regulation and the Register of Copyright Office's 1965 Report which says (page 136): "Note that the criterion here is the number of distinct 'works' infringed, and not the number of copyrights, exclusive rights, owners, or registrations." Coogan ran afoul of that, I believe.<BR/><BR/>There is a further tweak, though, that involves the derivative, nor compilation part of the provision, and that is what constitutes a derivative photograph? I it every subsequent photograph of the same subject at the same (or maybe even a later) time, or is each photograph a one-off?William Patryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-1131128024393494602005-11-04T13:13:00.000-05:002005-11-04T13:13:00.000-05:00Court have been all over the board on this issue a...Court have been all over the board on this issue although many of the cases have involved situations where the photographs were registered in conjunction with catalogs, magazines, and books and thus the compilation issue was genuinely at issue. Interestingly enough, there are dispositive opinions at the appellate level in the First and Fourth Circuits but none in the Second and Ninth Circuits. You raise a very good point regarding the legislative and administrative intent that underly the registration of published photographs as groups and unpublished photographs as collections, i.e., to give photographers a cost effective means of registering a large number of individual works. Court that have addressed this issue seem to have focused on the nature of the work and to have largely ignored the intent of the U.S. Copyright Office when promulgating the relevant provisions in the registration rules.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com