The seemingly simple question of whether copyright can subsist in a 680x600 pixel image of a Louis Vuitton Keepall Bandoulière opens a complex discussion encompassing intellectual property law, photography, product photography, and the nuances of online commerce. While the resolution (680x600 pixels) might seem low by today's standards, the image itself, depending on its creation and use, could very well be subject to copyright protection. This article will delve into the legal aspects, practical considerations, and the broader context of copyright in the age of e-commerce, specifically focusing on the example of a Louis Vuitton Keepall Bandoulière.
The Amazon listing referencing a "Louis Vuitton Monogram Ab Keepall Bandouliere 60 Duffle" provides a starting point. The image, presumed to be 680x600 pixels, accompanies the product listing to visually represent the bag. The question arises: who owns the copyright to this image? The answer is multifaceted and depends on several crucial factors.
1. Authorship and Originality:
Copyright protection automatically vests in the author of an original work of authorship. In the case of a product photograph, the photographer is generally considered the author. Originality, in this context, doesn't require groundbreaking creativity; it merely necessitates that the photograph reflects the photographer's independent intellectual effort. A simple snapshot of the bag against a plain background might still be considered original if it doesn't directly copy another photograph. However, if the image is a simple reproduction of a pre-existing image, without any significant alterations, it may not qualify for copyright protection.
The crucial point here is that the image itself, even at a low resolution, is a creative work. The photographer chose the angle, lighting, background, and composition. This selection process, even if seemingly minor, constitutes the necessary originality for copyright protection. The fact that the subject is a Louis Vuitton Keepall Bandoulière, a pre-existing product, doesn't negate the copyright in the *photograph* itself. The bag is protected by separate trademarks and design patents held by Louis Vuitton, but the image depicting it is a separate copyrighted work.
2. Ownership and Licensing:
The ownership of the copyright in the 680x600px image depends on who created it. If the photographer was an independent contractor hired by Amazon or Louis Vuitton, the copyright would likely be assigned to the commissioning party under a contract. If the photographer is an employee of either company, the copyright would likely be owned by the employer under the principle of "work made for hire." Amazon, in listing the product, is likely using the image under a licensing agreement with either the photographer or the copyright holder.
This aspect is crucial for e-commerce. Websites like Amazon rely heavily on product photography, and the legal framework surrounding the use of these images is complex. Unauthorized use of copyrighted images can lead to significant legal repercussions, including copyright infringement lawsuits.
3. Fair Use and Other Exceptions:
While copyright protection generally grants exclusive rights to the copyright holder, certain exceptions exist. Fair use, a doctrine recognized in many jurisdictions, allows the limited use of copyrighted material without permission for purposes such as criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. The application of fair use is highly fact-specific and depends on a four-factor test:
adresse navette fondation louis vuitton 45cm duffelbag louis vuitton