Michael Haseler wrote:
> John Briggs wrote:
> > Michael Haseler wrote:
> > > Puzzle:-
> > >
> > > I've taken a photo of a publically exhibited stuffed
> > > (real) animal in a lifelike pose. I want to use this
> > > in a book so I've got to ascertain the copyright
> > > situation. Who owns the copyright?
> > >
> > > (Hint: copyright is held by the original creator of
> > > the artwork!)
> > There's no puzzle. Copyright in the photograph is held
> > by the photographer. Photographing a stuffed animal
> > does not infringe the copyright of the stuffer.
> > Stuffing an identical animal in a similar fashion could.
> So long as you're stuffing the animal in a natural way
> you aren't protected! If you want protection you've got
> to stuff the animal in an unnatural way! That is because
> an unnaturally stuffed animal can be considered an
> original artwork!
> But if you stuff the animal naturally in an exhibit, and
> the exhibit itself is "unnatural" then a naturally
> stuffed animal in an unnatural exhibit is an original
> creation and so you will be protected by law!
No, the test of originality is remarkably low. The problem is not of
establishing your copyright in a stuffed animal, it is rather of realising
your economic right by the manufacture of replicas.