In the 1884 case Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, the United States Supreme Court considered whether photographs could receive copyright protection as 'writings' of an 'author' under the Constitution. The defendant argued that photography was a purely mechanical process, producing an exact chemical and optical reflection of the physical world rather than an original intellectual creation. The Court rejected this reductionist view, ruling that Napoleon Sarony’s portrait of Oscar Wilde exhibited original mental conception. The Court reasoned that Sarony had actively composed the scene by posing the subject, selecting costume and drapery, arranging lighting and shadow, and evoking a distinctive emotional expression. However, the Court carefully left open the question of whether ordinary, utilitarian photographs—those produced without deliberate artistic selection or stylistic arrangement—would satisfy the threshold of constitutional authorship.
Based on the passage, which of the following statements are logically supported by the text? (Select all that apply.)
- The Supreme Court recognized that an author's intellectual conception can be manifested through the deliberate arrangement of physical and optical elements.Answer
- BThe Court concluded that all mechanical recording methods inherently involve sufficient human judgment to warrant constitutional copyright protection.
- Under the Court's reasoning, a photograph produced without intentional aesthetic choices regarding composition or lighting might fail to qualify for copyright protection.Answer
- DSarony was awarded substantial statutory damages because the lithographic company had reproduced the portrait in multiple unauthorized international publications.
- EThe defendant contended that photography was ineligible for copyright because Sarony had directly copied the pose and costume design from pre-existing classical paintings.