> In Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, a defendant accused of making unauthorized copies of a photograph argued that the expansion of copyright protection to photographs by Congress was unconstitutional because “a photograph is not a writing nor the production of an author” but is instead created by a camera. The Court disagreed, holding that there was “no doubt” the Constitution's Copyright Clause permitted photographs to be subject to copyright, “so far as they are representatives of original intellectual conceptions of the author.”
"representatives of original intellectual conceptions"?
Wouldn't that only to apply to photos made with some preconceived idea of what you wanted the photo to look like?
What about spontaneous, "point and shoot" photos? What about a photo that I take with my eyes closed, without intent? And how original is your typical family snapshot or wedding photo? They're about as generic and unoriginal as you can get, yet there's no doubt they're copyrightable.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disp...
Yeah, much like a person using an AI.
Do you understand the debate happening here at all?
> In Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, a defendant accused of making
> unauthorized copies of a photograph argued that the expansion of copyright
> protection to photographs by Congress was unconstitutional because “a
> photograph is not a writing nor the production of an author” but is instead
> created by a camera.
> The Court disagreed, holding that there was “no doubt” the Constitution's
> Copyright Clause permitted photographs to be subject to copyright, “so far
> as they are representatives of original intellectual conceptions of the
> author.”