On 5/3/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/3/06, Kirill Lokshin
<kirill.lokshin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/3/06, Steve Bennett
<stevage(a)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