From: teun spaans <teun.spaans(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Bridgeman v. Corel worldwide for Wikimedia Commons - yes or
no?
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
<foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Date: Friday, August 22, 2008, 4:48 AM
I just photographed individual plants, so layout does not
come into
question.
There was no sign with a copyright claim or remark about
photographs at the
entrance - in fact it was hard to find an entrance at all.
The only sign we
found was a wooden sign "botanical garden" - that
direction.
In hindsight, there may have been a text or direction on
the walls of the
refugio (mountain hut), some 100 meters away, but we were
glad to have
located the botanical garden at all, and didnt think of it.
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 8:42 AM, Nikola Smolenski
<smolensk(a)eunet.yu> wrote:
Cary Bass wrote:
> teun spaans wrote:
>> While on holiday in Italy i took some pix of
plants in a botanical
garden.
>> There was no admittance fee, it was publicly
accessible.
>>
>> Can i upload the pix of the plants I took
there, or does the owner of
the
>> botanical garden has some form of ownership?
>
> This is not to say that the botanical garden
doesn't claim restriction
> on the use of images taken within its walls
(in
my experience,
> non-commercial clauses are the norm). In
fact,
such restrictions are
> quite commonplace for botanical gardens,
zoological parks, and many
> other facilities. This should not be
mistaken
for a claim of copyright;
> and at most they might do is deny you access
to
their property in the
future.
Actually, I think that a botanical garden could claim
copyright on plant
layout or somesuch. I'm not aware that this
has
ever happened, however,
and of course panorama freedom would apply. Also
not a
problem when
photographing individual plants, unless they are
[[living sculpture]]s.
>
Concerns about restrictions placed on images by way of admittance, although a real issue,
is not a copyright issue. These are instead a contract issue and while this is binding on
the photographer, is does not apply to the image like copyright does. For example a
photographer pays to atttend a museum exhibit and the ticket states attendees may use
images only for non-comercial purposes. That photagrapher could be sued for a breach of
contract if they sold an image they took at the exhibit. But if they upload an image to
Commons. They have not used the image commercially (they provided it free of charge to a
non-profit) and have not violated the contract. Everyone else in the world that did not
purchase a ticket to this exhibit is not bound by any contract and may do whatever is
allowed by the copyright.
Birgitte SB
Some discussion on this topic at: