-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I would like to point out that it's not up to the Wikimedia Foundation
to determine what is free and not free on Commons; this is entirely
governed by the Commons community, which has a mix of experts and
non-experts of its own. However, I will be copying Mike Godwin on
this email to find out what his educated opinion is on the matter (I
have a feeling he'll say something like a photograph of a statue taken
in the United States is in fact not a derivative work of the statue in
the United States)
Cary Bass
J JIH wrote:
Neither am I your lawyer, but your points are very
interesting and
potentially encouraging. Once the Wikimedia Foundation is able to
accept your points, recent pictures of very old coins may also
become acceptable on Commons, similar to mere copies of very old
2-dimensional works.
Jusjih
> Message: 4 Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:11:39 -0800 (PST) From:
> Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd(a)yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Commons-l]
> Photos of statues not considered derivatives in the US? To:
> Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <131842.94385.qm(a)web37405.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> IANAL, but I would say it's solid as it has been cited in Latimer
> v. Roaring Toyz, Inc., 2008 WL 697346 (M.D. Fl.)
>
>
>
> ________________________________ From: Howard Cheng
> <howard(a)howcheng.com> To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List
> <commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008
> 4:42:29 PM Subject: [Commons-l] Photos of statues not considered
> derivatives in the US?
>
> According to
>
http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.h…,
> Judge William H. Pauley III of the Southern
District of New York
> ruled in SHL Imaging, Inc. v. Artisan House, Inc., 117 F. Supp.
> 2d 301 (S.D. N.Y. 2000) that photographs of statues/sculptures
> are not considered derivative works, noting: "A photograph of
> Jeff Koons's 'Puppy' sculpture in Manhattan's Rockefeller Center
> merely depicts that sculpture; it does not recast, transform, or
> adapt Koons's sculptural authorship. In short, the authorship of
> the photographic work is entirely different and separate from the
> authorship of the sculpture."
>
> Note that this is the same court that issued the Bridgeman v.
> Corel ruling. If this hasn't been overturned at any point, and
> the blog post linked above doesn't indicate that it has, then we
> should start allowing photos of statues in the US, and perhaps
> anywhere even where there is no FOP for statues (similar to what
> we did for PD-Art).
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -h
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFJJwdLyQg4JSymDYkRApFzAKDhyRW7m8YQCmvKS5Gji5O3mzBmqgCfcYWs
4KBstk5qzR5nuWZpSJlZe9c=
=LoDv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----