On Aug 23, 2012, at 8:05 AM, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:49 PM,
<Birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
To reword what I said before the vast majority of
X-ray images in existence are diagnostic
images. There is no reason at all to purposefully search out X-rays that might land in
some
grey area.
One problem with that is that the X-ray images that you are most
likely to find are the most likely to have been created with the
intention of being distributed.
I don't understand why "intention to distribute" would be relevant.
On the other hand, if "probably no one will
sue" is good enough for
you, then you really don't need to ask the legal question in the first
place.
That is not at all what I said, but you are quite good at striking down an argument which
I did not make and do not support!
Since there is so little left of what I said, I will rephrase: Diagnostic images are not
copyrighted and there are lots of interchangeable images that are equally not copyrighted.
If one of these interchangeable images credits someone as a creator, and you are worried
they "probably will sue", then use another interchangeable image. Unless, of
course, one purposefully wishes to be a jerk about their understanding of copyright. And
while I am sure someone will, I wound prefer not to put any more effort in considering the
situation. (So please don't misquote me on this issue!)
Another rule of thumb: Most images, whatever they
depict, are also *designed* to be pleasing
to human aesthetics.
I don't understand that. What are you using the term "human
aesthetics" to mean?
I meant when creating a common photo no consideration is given to composition of the
infrared wavelengths. However, whether the photographer is very aware of it or not,
aesthetic choices are being made as the overall composition is selected. It is really
outside this topic, but I think the aesthetics which happen please/disturb us are often
evolutionary. I tend to always be connecting things in my thinking, I didn't mean to
have it spill over and muddy things here. Don't read too much into and pretend I just
wrote aesthetics. I doubt any one but me would be reading that sentence and wondering
whether non-humans would find most pictures to be pleasing. Sorry for confusing the
issue.
And even if you're truer about most, that still
leaves a great number
which were not. Many images were in fact designed to be aesthetically
displeasing.
I also wrote a sentence about copyrightable images being designed for "aesthetic
effect". While I think the statement you quoted works as *a rule of thumb*, I
purposefully did not limit the statement that followed to only *pleasing* aesthetic
effects.
And many others were designed, like the X-ray image, to objectively
depict reality.
_____________________
Yes there are many such images.
These types of images are called utilitarian images.
Which is what prompted me to write about how copyright hangs upon aesthetic choices. In
hopes that it would help people understand why images lacking aesthetic choices also lack
copyright. I was very aware there are many such images. I labeled my statement a rule of
thumb not a universal rule.
I know this all sounds like I am very annoyed. I am really just slightly annoyed ;)
Look copyright is really tough. Really. And most people, probably everyone to some
degree, misunderstands copyright. I honestly am happy to see you smack down some of my
statements, like you did about all the international agreements working as bi-lateral
treaties. I learned that Berne is different today, and frankly I think that is awesome. I
ran out of low hanging fruit wrt to copyright a long time ago. I really appreciate the
opportunity this thread has offered me to gain a nuance to my understanding. Seriously.
But I don't appreciate the rhetorical twists that, instead of clarifying the
discussion, muddy things by making our that a sentence or two that wrote support a
position that I never took. Not that it bothers me personally. But it confuses the
discussion immensely for people who may have been struggling to follow it in the
beginning. A long time ago, when I knew *nothing* of copyright, this list is where I
managed to gather most of the low hanging fruit. Eventually I had to search for
understanding elsewhere, but I know people making copyright decisions in the wikis may be
using this list as a tool for making those decisions. At one time, I was such a person.
So anyways . . . I know it's the internet and all . . . where men are compelled to put
on displays of rhetorical prowess as though they were peacocks . . . but please . . . for
the children and all that . . . Can we try to avoid picking out the weakest snippets of
writing for rhetorical displays and instead focus on the heart of the positions to explore
the issue in way that allows us to both improve our understandings?
At least about copyright?
Birgitte SB