[talk-au] Does this mean?.....

Ian Sergeant inas66+osm at gmail.com
Tue Dec 21 22:58:07 GMT 2010

I wrote :

> And even non-artistic photography... [is copyrightable]
> However, this case draws a real distinction between the human process
> of originality, and an automated process according to a set of rules.
> I've no doubt that if I take a photo out of an aeroplane window that
> copyright subsists in that photo.  However, it would be interesting to
> see what the courts would now make of a satellite taking photos
> automatically according to a standard process of the earths surface.

Richard Colless <firefly at ar.com.au> wrote:

> Having just completed my Certificate IV photography course,


> I can assure you
> that any photo taken for private purposes is immediately copyright to the
> photographer. Photos taken for commercial purposes are also copyright,

I think this is perfectly settled and clear.

> Satellite photos would probably be copyright to the organisation that
> commissioned the photos, because the Copyright Act makes no distinction as
> to what type of camera or how it is operated.

Have you read the case we are discussing?

Even though the Copyright Act doesn't explicitly distinguish between
these types of photos, the courts have found that there is an implied
difference in the Copyright Act between an act of human originality
and automatic process.  So the courts have found that the Act does in
fact make such a distinction.

Of course it made this distinction on facts regarding building a
database.  That is to say that if non-copyrightable information is
combined by an automated process, then copyright doesn't subsist in
the resulting compilation.  Given, however, that it has implied this
distinction between human originality and automated processing into
the Act, I maintain it would be interesting to see how it would rule
on a photograph taken without any human originality or involvement, by
an automated, repeated process.


More information about the Talk-au mailing list