G'day Kirill,
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.
I agree: if a copy is accurate, you couldn't tell. BUT, that's American law. If a copy is made in the UK (say by a museum), and the uploader is also a Yukian, could he be held liable by Yukian courts for copyright infringement if the museum claims copyright?
I don't know --- IANAL, IJPOOTV.
On 5/3/06, Gallagher Mark George m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
I agree: if a copy is accurate, you couldn't tell.
Unless I know where the original object is.
BUT, that's American law. If a copy is made in the UK (say by a museum), and the >uploader is also a Yukian, could he be held liable by Yukian courts for copyright >infringement if the museum claims copyright?
I don't know --- IANAL, IJPOOTV.
-- MarkGallagher
IANALE
However Lewis v King suggests that the English courts would regard it as within their juristiction.
As
-- geni