SHL Imaging, Inc. v. Artisan House, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that photographs of mirrored picture frames taken for advertisements were sufficiently original based on the totality of the precise lighting selection, angle of the camera, lens and filter selection
• holding that copyright protection in product-accurate photographs was “thin”
• finding that a photograph was not a work for hire where “[d]e-fendants d[id] not claim that they instructed plaintiff to use any particular camera, film or equipment.”
• Stating explicitly, albeit with no reasoning, that “joint authorship is an affirmative defense.”
• a photograph of a sculpture “merely depicts that sculpture; it does not recast, transform, or adapt” the authorship found in the preexisting work
• “That the photographs were intended solely for commercial use has no bearing on their protectibility.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).