On 6/4/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:
Jim wrote:
1. Determination that the photos lack
sufficient originality, thus
the photographer can not claim copyright in the photo of a public
domain work (following Bridgeman)
2. Assuming that there is sufficient originality, so we need to find
the copyright status of the photo seperate from the one in the
portrait:
1. If they are photos posted by the US govt and copied to
wikipedia from there - then those are clearly in the public
domain as a work of the US govt.
2. If the photo was taken by a contributor - then we should
refer to his license in uploading the work.
Personally, my review of the photos in question indicate that they
clearly fall under the Bridgeman decision and the photographer can not
claim a copyright in them as there is not the sufficient originality by
the photographer
The problem is that Bridgman was only a district court case, not a
circuit court case, and it is unclear that the reasoning in Bridgman
will be followed by other courts. It is not much of a precedent to rely
upon.
--Jimbo
Agreed, but we still have option 2) identify the source of the photo of the
public domain work and find out whether they will clearly grant a license
acceptable to WMF. Unfortunately, the only issue being discussed is whether
the works are public domain or not. The US govt clearly owns both the
physical objects and the copyright in the work - thus it is public domain.
So, if as Jimbo indicates we should assume that Bridgeman is not
controlling, we should focus on the source of the photos and determine
whether the photographer is claiming a seperate copyright in the photo.
Jim
--
Jim (trodel(a)gmail.com)
"Our love may not always be reciprocated, or
even appreciated, but love is never wasted"
- Neal A Maxwell