On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:34 AM, <Birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
On Aug 22, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Anthony
<wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
I could be wrong, but I'm not sure
there's a requirement for aesthetic
or artistic purpose. Non-fiction, software, legal contracts, etc.,
all have been held to be copyrightable.
I think you are overestimating the very minimal amount of creativity that is required to
here.
Not at all. I'm just saying that creativity isn't necessarily art. A
legal contract may be quite creative. But it isn't art.
Either way,
it's a question of fact what instructions were given to
the X-ray tech, as well as whether or not the tech followed them.
I disagree here, the intention of the creator has no more to do with copyright than
effort
expended.
Hmm...you may be right on that. If I accidentally spill some paint on
a canvas and it creates an image that looks like the Virgin Mary, do I
have a copyright on the image?
I'm not sure what the case law is on that one.