[Foundation-l] Bridgeman v. Corel worldwide for Wikimedia Commons - yes or no?

[teun spaans]

While on holiday in Italy i took some pix of plants in a botanical garden.
There was no admittance fee, it was publicly accessible.

Can i upload the pix of the plants I took there, or does the owner of the
botanical garden has some form of ownership?



On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 1:36 AM, Marco Chiesa <chiesa.marco at gmail.com>wrote:

> David Gerard ha scritto:
> > FWIW, the National Portrait Gallery hasn't bugged Wikimedia about
> > images of pictures they own (which they claim copyright on, and which
> > we have marked "public domain due to age") since Jimbo told them to
> > sue and be damned, a few years ago. It can be *very useful* to be the
> > 800-pound gorilla of free content.
> >
> >
> Interesting. In Italy we managed to go on the press when the Museums of
> Florence forced us to take down all the images of works owned by them.
> As a result a law introducing some kind of fair use has been passed by
> the Parliament, and now it may be possible to publish one's own
> photographs of PD work of arts owned by State museums with a
> noncommercial licence (if they're owned by private museums they're
> completely PD). Of course we are in the situation where we cannot put on
> the Italian Wikipedia images that are on commons; this is very far from
> Bridgeman vs Corel...
>
> Cruccone
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>