The first version sent too soon and was almost
unreadable, sorry if you struggled through it. Here it is again with copy-editing.
On Jul 26, 2012, at 9:06 PM, Birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com wrote:
On Jul 26, 2012, at 5:51 PM, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
Copyrights wouldn't apply because you own the
copyrights in the pictures you
take.
Maybe. You own the copyright fully if you are the sole contributor of
the creative input which went into the picture. If someone else also
contributed, then you might own the copyright in the picture as a
derivative work (extending only to your contributions), <snip>
I hope you don' t mind my picking out this piece from your email and ignoring the
rest.
Simply photographing a copyrighted work does NOT
create a photograph that is a derivative work. For a photo to become a derivative work you
have to really go beyond timing, lighting, point and click.
This claim that photographs are derivative works came up just a few weeks ago in the
trademark discussion. I never directly addressed this issue during that discussion. While
I felt certain there was some error in to the claim, I could not recall the reasoning
behind the counter-point. I just came across the in-depth discussion. If anyone is
interested the links follow, and don't forget to read the comments. The comments are
actually were it is all explained in lay terms with good examples instead of judicial
terms.
http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.h…
http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.h…
Birgitte SB
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: