I think the 9th circuit treads on dangerous ground here and it will be interesting if this is appealed to the Supreme Court. Although it is called a "catalog" it is not as though you can leaf through and purchase items in the catalog. Second, nothing is original work, and instead it is a compendium of photographs of Picasso's work. Personally I think all too much is made of the copyright nature of a photograph. It is one thing to provide copyright protection to a genuine work of art, e.g. Ansel Adams, or collected in the course of a business or profession for such reasons - e.g. paparazzi or war correspondents or some such. But an everyday photograph of an every day thing has no value as anyone say walkiing by the white house can take a picture of the whitehouse.
Typing a copy of the Declaration of Independence does not and should not give me a copyright work. Snapping a picture shouldn't either.
“Typing a copy of the Declaration of Independence does not and should not give me a copyright work. Snapping a picture shouldn’t either. “
These two things are not analogous.
If you type or write or draw the Constitution in a unique way, the words do not become yours but the art is yours.
No one can take your art and sell it as just another public domain edition of the Constitution.
I agree, especially when the photo is of somebody else’s actual artwork.
Copyright is a mess and it’s the fault of Congress. So is the patent office, for that matter.
That's not the general meaning of catalog.