Copyright law and the freedom of panorama: The right to commercialise photographs of protected works

<p>Making an unauthorised copy of a copyright-protected work is a copyright infringement, as is making an adaptation or a derivative work without gaining prior consent from the author or authors of the copyright-protected work. It was once questioned at one of the Berne Convention amendment meetings whether to take photographs of copyright-protected literary works was to make copies of them. The meeting concluded that taking photographs of literary works meant making copies of them, and, therefore, photographs should not be taken without gaining the prior consent of the author or authors. However, there was no discussion about photographs of other type of works, such as buildings and sculptures. Taking photographs of architectural and sculptural works permanently situated in public places is protected under “freedom of panorama”, a provision of copyright laws that permits the taking of photographs of those works, which is applied differently in some countries. This paper discusses copyright protection for those photographs, though there are not many cases available in this issue as the terminology of “freedom of panorama” was only recently coined. The discussion is based on the Berne Convention, and copyright law in the United States, New Zealand, and Indonesia. Freedom of panorama may seem to limit the exclusive rights for architects and sculptors to authorise any acts to be done over their works. However, photographers also have the need to be sure that their photographs are protected, including photographs that are taken under the freedom of panorama. Therefore, this paper argues that the photographers who take photographs under the freedom of panorama should be able to exercise exclusive and moral rights over their photographs. Although the three countries mentioned provide protection for the “freedom of panorama”, it is protected differently and, therefore, there is a need to include the freedom of panorama in an international copyright treaty to avoid a possible conflict of laws.</p>

Copyright law and the freedom of panorama: The right to commercialise photographs of protected works

<p>Making an unauthorised copy of a copyright-protected work is a copyright infringement, as is making an adaptation or a derivative work without gaining prior consent from the author or authors of the copyright-protected work. It was once questioned at one of the Berne Convention amendment meetings whether to take photographs of copyright-protected literary works was to make copies of them. The meeting concluded that taking photographs of literary works meant making copies of them, and, therefore, photographs should not be taken without gaining the prior consent of the author or authors. However, there was no discussion about photographs of other type of works, such as buildings and sculptures. Taking photographs of architectural and sculptural works permanently situated in public places is protected under “freedom of panorama”, a provision of copyright laws that permits the taking of photographs of those works, which is applied differently in some countries. This paper discusses copyright protection for those photographs, though there are not many cases available in this issue as the terminology of “freedom of panorama” was only recently coined. The discussion is based on the Berne Convention, and copyright law in the United States, New Zealand, and Indonesia. Freedom of panorama may seem to limit the exclusive rights for architects and sculptors to authorise any acts to be done over their works. However, photographers also have the need to be sure that their photographs are protected, including photographs that are taken under the freedom of panorama. Therefore, this paper argues that the photographers who take photographs under the freedom of panorama should be able to exercise exclusive and moral rights over their photographs. Although the three countries mentioned provide protection for the “freedom of panorama”, it is protected differently and, therefore, there is a need to include the freedom of panorama in an international copyright treaty to avoid a possible conflict of laws.</p>

Custom Arrangements

Custom arrangements are: (a) derivative works, generally musical arrangements, based upon preexisting copyrighted musical works, (b) reproduced in the form of sheet music copies, and (c) distributed to specific third-party performance ensembles. Arrangers who create custom arrangements are able to utilize software and Internet services to create such arrangements physically and digitally and distribute them physically and via file sharing. This chapter explores the legal framework and justification for custom arrangement licensing under American law, with a focus on the reproduction, derivative work, distribution, and display rights afforded to copyright owners. Differences between physical and digital sheet music are noted where relevant. The chapter also addresses both practical and normative arguments encountered in the world of custom arrangement licensing and concludes with brief commentary on the custom arrangement licensing process.

Robert Louis Stevenson and the Fin-de-Siècle Vampire “Olalla” (1885) as ‘Aesthetic Fantastic’

“Olalla” (1885) by Robert Louis Stevenson has usually been neglected by critics interested in late-Victorian culture. Preceding of just a few weeks the publication of The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1886), this novella has been judged as a derivative work, a story whose interest lies in its different sources, ranging from Edward Bulwer Lytton’s A Strange Story to E.A. Poe’s tales. My analysis aims to prove that in writing this work, Stevenson is probably drawing inspiration from the imagery exploited by some members of the Aesthetic Movement, among them Walter Pater and Edward Burne-Jones.

A Transformational Approach for Musical Variation

This article is associated with a broad research addressing musical variation, whose main objective is the systematization of the analysis through the elaboration of an original analytical model. A new version of this model proposes a formal approach based on principles of the transformational theory. The present article is focused in the notion of variation isolated from a contextual framework (that is, out of temporal perspectives), setting the basis for further explorations. .Some original concepts, like derivative work, derivative space, attributes, among others, provide means for measurement of similarity relations between referential and derived musical ideas, as well as graphic representation for these relationships.

TO THE QUESTION OF DEFINING THE CONCEPT OF FORGING ART WORKS

The article consistently discusses basic terminology related to the forgery of works of art. In particular, the phenomenon of attribution is explored, which means the definition of authenticity, authenticity of a work of art, its author, place and time of creation. The concept of the original, which is generally referred to as the basis for reproduction, copying and reprocessing, is explored. Attention is drawn to the fact that in Ukrainian, law this term (original) is not defined, but it can be identified with the phrase “material object in which the work is embodied”. It is determined that the legislator uses the term work, axiomatically considers that the material object in which this work is first embodied, and is the original. It is stated that the legislator does not define the term work, but interprets such concepts as a work of architecture; a work of fine art; a work of applied art. In summary, it is important in this context to understand the distribution of copyright and ownership of the tangible object in which the work (original) is embodied. Issues of the category of “original” in engraving are covered. Different levels of copy concept (doublet, replica, repetition) are considered. It is established that the concept of art is the variant most similar to the derivative work in law, which is a creative alteration of another existing work without harming its protection. At the same time, the situation in which the variants of the work are performed by the author of the original, and when it comes to imitation, endorsement and shepherds, in which reference is made to already existing works of other persons, is delimited. It has been found out that in addition to intentional fraud, there are many noncriminal reasons why a work of art may not be attributed to its original author. On the basis of the conducted research, the author’s definition of fake work of art, which is a material object in which the work is embodied, the author (producer) and/or the time and place of creation (manufacture) of which is untrue, but was presented as such, and this is refuted by evidence that is beyond doubt – a complex art and technology – technological expertise, taking into account relevant research on provenance and ownership history.

Comparative Theoretical Studies on a Series of Novel Energetic Salts Composed of 4,8-Dihydrodifurazano[3,4-b,e]pyrazine-based Anions and Ammonium-based Cations

4,8-Dihydrodifurazano[3,4-b,e]pyrazine (DFP) is one kind of parent compound for the synthesis of various promising difurazanopyrazine derivatives. In this paper, eleven series of energetic salts composed of 4,8-dihydrodifurazano[3,4-b,e]pyrazine-based anions and ammonium-based cations were designed. Their densities, heats of formation, energetic properties, impact sensitivity, and thermodynamics of formation were studied and compared based on density functional theory and volume-based thermodynamics method. Results show that ammonium and hydroxylammonium salts exhibit higher densities and more excellent detonation performance than guanidinium and triaminoguanidinium salts. Therein, the substitution with electron-withdrawing groups (–NO2, –CH2NF2, –CH2ONO2, –C(NO2)3, –CH2N3) contributes to enhancing the densities, heats of formation, and detonation properties of the title salts, and the substitution of –C(NO2)3 features the best performance. Incorporating N–O oxidation bond to difurazano[3,4-b,e]pyrazine anion gives a rise to the detonation performance of the title salts, while increasing their impact sensitivity meanwhile. Importantly, triaminoguanidinium 4,8-dihydrodifurazano[3,4-b,e]pyrazine (J4) has been successfully synthesized. The experimentally determined density and H50 value of J4 are 1.602 g/cm3 and higher than 112 cm, which are consistent with theoretical values, supporting the reliability of calculation methods. J4 proves to be a thermally stable and energetic explosive with decomposition peak temperature of 216.7 °C, detonation velocity 7732 m/s, and detonation pressure 25.42 GPa, respectively. These results confirm that the derivative work in furazanopyrazine compounds is an effective strategy to design and screen out potential candidates for high-performance energetic salts.

MUSEUM EXHIBITION VERSUS COPYRIGHT

Organisation of exhibitions from the point of view of copyright (Act on Copyright and Related Rights of 4 Feb. 1994, further copyright) is a multifaceted issue. The analysis conducted in the paper boils down to some selected aspects: beginning with the right to display, through exhibition as a separate copyrighted work, up to the exhibition author, namely curator. When purchasing items for collections or acquiring them on the ground of a loan contract, museums should make sure the work can be exploited through public display. Such agreement can be either expressed in the contract (rights or licence transfer) or can be implicit (it can be then assumed that non-exclusive licence with all its limitations has been transferred). Furthermore, the construction of fair use from Art. 32.1 of Act on Copyright can be applicable. An issue apart is the question of exhibition as a separate copyrighted work. It can be a co-authored work in the case when it combines creative efforts of e.g. curator and author of the exhibition layout. The article analyses exhibition understood as a collection of exhibits selected and arranged following a script or presented following a layout in order to fulfil the assumptions of a derivative work (Art. 2 Act on Copyright) or a collection (Art. 3 Act on Copyright). As a result of the assumption that exhibition is a work, the curator becomes an author, thus will have copyright to the created work. Depending on the formal curator-museum relationship, the author’s economic rights shall either be transferred to the museum (employee’s work, specific-task contract with rights transfer or licence granting), or shall exceptionally remain with the author.