Hi
I am currently uploading my back catalogue of song lyrics to a virtual songbook on the soon to be launched, all new, willecho.com (look out for the new site in 2015).
I am happy that my songs are copyright protected and I totally get that I have created something in my mind that has never been created before, is totally unique and wouldn't have existed if it weren't for my creating them. This got me thinking about light images and copyright laws.
My thought is this. How can a basic photograph be subject to copyright laws? Nothing new has been created, the image was there before. All that's happened is the photographer has taken their recording medium (a camera) and recorded the light rays bouncing off a source that they neither created nor own. This is the same as a sound recording enthusiast taking their recording medium (a sound recorder) and recording the sound waves bouncing off the walls from a concert hall of their favorite band. They would be recording something they never created nor own. But In this case they would be breaking the law!
The only difference I can see to between a photographer and a sound recordist breaking the law, is that a photographer captures light from a copyright free source whereas a sound recordist captures sound from an already copyrighted source.
So surely if no copyright exists on the light source, how can capturing it on a recording medium suddenly give it the valuable label of all rights protected and generate wealth for the individual?
The only justification I can see is where the act of photography becomes an art form in itself by creating a new enhanced work. But what about all the bland images that simply exist from a banal act of pressing a button to capture the light that we all own, emitted from a source that we all own, how can that be an art form and how can that be copyrighted?
I hope I haven't offended any photographers; this isn't a question of the undoubted skill and true art form of capturing a perfect image, just at the right moment, when the light or the event is at its zenith and taking it to another level. This is questioning a legal matter of copyright and lawful usage of something that we all naturally own - light and space. These are merely my thoughts that I am trying to find an answer for. I would love to hear from any experts on copyright law or photographers who have a take on this. I'm just trying to understand and get some constructive conversation on the matter.
I'll leave you with this thought. Should a simple transfer of light onto a recording medium without any further artistic interpretation be excluded from the protection of copyright or is the process of picking up a camera, framing a subject and capturing a point in time an artistic act in itself? I suppose the answer lays in your interpretation of what defines art.
I would love to know your thoughts, feel free to contact me - willechomusic@googlemail.com
Until next time, I'll keep drooling over the images I could use as art work for my next CD - if only I had permission!!!!
All the best
Will