On 5/3/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/3/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/3/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/3/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
You make some excellent points. A way of easily migrating free images once checked by confirmed users would solve my original problem. Can you elaborate on these increasingly stringent demands?
Aside from the propensity of random people to tag 15th-century paintings with {{nsd}}? ;-)
If the copy of the painting was made within the uk it is quite posible it is under copyright. Or at least the copyright status would be rather complex.
Curious. I was under the impression that Bridgeman v Corel drew no distinction based on where the copy was made (if the copy is accurate, how could you tell?), and that _any_ (two-dimensional, slavish, etc.) reproduction of a PD artwork was considered PD under US law.
Kirill
But not under UK law. So if an image was copyed and published in the uk it may or may not be copywriten. So you have an image published in the uk that may be copywriten. Then the Berne convention turns up and I lost interest in trying to figure stuff out. In any case you then have the problem of UK editors. Copyright law in this area appears to be a mess. We need sources so we can deal with the problem of it being clarified (For example if Bridgeman v Corel was overturned knowing which images were copied directly from PD sources by wikipedians would be kinda hand since we would then know what not to delete).
-- geni