Smile and Say, "We Need Not Decide": Decoding the Federal Courts' Nonanswers Regarding the Derivative-Work Status of Photographs
![handle is hein.journals/tuljtip14 and id is 263 raw text is: COMMENTS
Smile and Say, We Need Not Decide:
Decoding the Federal Courts' Nonanswers
Regarding the Derivative-Work
Status of Photographs
Jordan Parker*
I. INTRO D UCTION ................................................................................. 26 1
II. HISTORY OF PHOTOGRAPHS AND COPYRIGHT ................................. 263
A . B ackground ...................................................................... 263
B. What's in a CopyrightAnyway? ...................................... 265
III. DERIVATIVE WORKS AND THE COPYRIGHT ACT ............................. 268
IV. PHOTOGRAPHS AND THE DEBATE OVER DERIVATIVE-WORK
P RO TECTIO N ..................................................................................... 270
A. How Have the Courts Managed To A void Resolving
This Issue? ......................... ...... 270
B. Case Law Sympathetic Towards (but Without
Deciding) Derivative- Work Protection for
Photograp hs ...................................................................... 271
C Case Law Leaning Against (but Without Deciding)
Derivative- Work Protection for Photographs .................. 274
V. LEGAL AND EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS ..................................... 278
V I. C ONCLUSION .................................................................................... 281
I. INTRODUCTION
Copyright serves the dual purpose ofassur[ing] authors the right to
their original expression, [while] encourag[ing] others to build freely
upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work.' Accordingly,
copyright protection extends not only to novel works, but also to
* © 2011 Jordan Parker. J.D. candidate 2012, Tulane University Law School; B.A.
2007, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). The author would like to thank his parents
for making all of his opportunities possible and his extended family of lawyers: thanks to his
lawyer brother David for all of his encouragement through the long duration of law school, his
lawyer Aunt Debbie for all of her support, and thanks to copyright aficionado Uncle Neil for
inspiring him to pursue intellectual property. He would also like to thank the members of the
Tulane Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property for all of their hard work and dedication.
I. Feist Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 349-50 (1991).
261](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/tuljtip14&div=8&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most