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

[Robert Rohde]

On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Concerns about restrictions placed on images by way of admittance, although a real issue, is not a copyright issue.  These are instead a contract issue and while this is binding on the photographer, is does not apply to the image like copyright does.  For example a photographer pays to atttend a museum exhibit and the ticket states attendees may use images only for non-comercial purposes.  That photagrapher could be sued for a breach of contract if they sold an image they took at the exhibit.  But if they upload an image to Commons. They have not used the image commercially (they provided it free of charge to a non-profit) and have not violated the contract.  Everyone else in the world that did not purchase a ticket to this exhibit is not bound by any contract and may do whatever is allowed by the copyright.
>
> Birgitte SB
>

That's a correct statement of US law, as I understand it, but I'm far
less sure that this issue resolves itself the same way in all
jurisdictions.  I seem to recall reading about jurisdictions where
that law swung the other way and people who were "harmed" by the
illicit photography/distribution had rights (even beyond copyright) to
squash further distribution.  The analogy being drawn more along the
lines of distributing stolen property (which isn't okay in the US
either), rather than a copyright issue in the traditional sense.

Unfortunately, I don't remember the context in which I read this, so
I'm not sure about where it applies.

-Robert Rohde