On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
By the common meaning of the word
"original", I'd say the photograph
*is* original. OTOH, under US precedent it *probably* isn't within
the US legal meaning of the term.
I should add that, in my US analysis, I was making the assumption that
there was no creative post-processing of the photograph, which on
second thought is not a safe assumption.