[Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays

[Anthony]

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:20 AM,  <Birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I believe artistic/non-artistic is accurate for images. Technically it is artistic, literary, dramatic,
> or musical works.

Well, I think that's an abuse of the term "artistic".  The job of a
photojournalist, for instance, is to capture what is true, not what is
aesthetically pleasing.

I understand that it's an abuse of the term "artistic" which is, to
some extent codified into law.  But I still don't think it's the right
term.

>> Even using the term "utilitarian" rather than "artistic" I can still
>> come up with a large number of examples of things which seem pretty
>> "clear-cut" as "utilitarian" to me, but yet which receive copyright
>> protection.  gzip, for instance.
>
> I actually expanded on this at the end of my last email. If that doesn't clarify, ask again and
> explain what gzip is.

gzip is command line compression software.  As you've limited your
comment to images, it doesn't apply.

>>> And even if it is only the US, other countries would not recognize copyright on diagnostic
>>> images created in the US, which gives us at least the NASA situation.
>>
>> Do you have a citation for this?  Also, is it where the image is
>> created, or where it is first published, or something else?
>>
> Copyright, internationally, is bilateral agreements. If it is not protected in the US, it cannot
> demand bilateral protection elsewhere.  It would be based on the jurisdiction of creation.
> Publication has had nothing to do with the creation of copyright since the 1970's as far as I
> am aware.  Before 1976, in the US, place of publication was significant for determining
> copyright protection because of the notice requirement. Now copyright is automatic at fixation.

Are you sure, or are you guessing?

What about all that "country of origin" stuff in the Berne Convention?
 That certainly suggests to me that the location of first publication
matters.