RE: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Are panoramic photos derivative works?
- PJ & Listers.
I read the article you referenced below.
It's clear that various jurisdictions within the US have ruled in different
Near the end of the article is the following:
"The Murray Hill rule requires a corresponding registration for each
discrete work. The cautious practitioner, therefore, should register a
client's derivative work before pursuing an infringement case that may
involve any elements of that work"
This would seen to me to say..... even if you register each component of
your equirectangular image, you should still copyright the pano. It's
important to keep in mind that US copyright is only one (although an
important one) of perhaps 200 national jurisdictions and it is "all over the
place" on rulings.
As for myself.... I going with common sense.
I'll register what I show!
I have no intention of registering thousands of component parts that will
never be published as stand alone pieces.
I'm going to register my equirectangular images as original (discrete)
works. To use the music analogy....you can't copyright a cord but you can
copyright a combination of cords that consitute a particular melody.
In North America
From: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Perry Joseph
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 1:10 AM
Subject: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Are panoramic photos derivative works?
--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Chris Thomas <chris@...> wrote:
> Would one not copyright the collage..... rather than it's individual
I agree, however I'm not sure a panoramic would necessarily be
comparable to a collage in the tradidional sense. And if the collage
was just a collection of photos without any new material added, I'm
not so sure it would have to be registered as derivative works if it's
the same author.
I refer back to a link I mentioned previously. Part IV would be the
part I'm specifically looking at:
Note I'm not saying this brief is a definitive answer, but it has a
few compelling points and references.
It's also inferred in the brief there may be differences of
interpretation depending on the district as previously pointed out by
I'm waiting to see if my legal beagle sniffs anything further from his
For the record, I'm not satisfied the question has been answered yet:
do panoramics need to be registered as derivative works if the
originals have already been registered?
In one sense, you might easily argue that if there's doubt and you
want to be 100% sure you can sue for statutory and attorney fees, then
you would register a pano as a derivative assuming you previously
registered the originals.