[Wikimedia-l] Copyright on Xrays

[Anthony]

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:44 PM,  <Birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 23, 2012, at 8:05 AM, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
>> 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!

It was an argument that I made and which I do support.  I'm not going
to make a detailed legal analysis every time I copy or distribute
something.  If it isn't obviously infringing, and if "probably no one
will sue", sometimes that's good enough.  Other times it isn't.  For
example, I've never done a detailed legal analysis of what the limits
are (if any) to quoting people in an email sent to a mailing list.  It
isn't obviously infringing, and probably no one will sue, so that's
good enough.  On the other hand, if I were going to run a business
redistributing mailing list emails, I'd pay for or do some legal
analysis first.

By "you" I wasn't referring to you in particular, I was referring to
anyone considering the matter.  Sorry if I was confusing by using the
word "you".

> 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.

Right, you've pretty much already said that.  I have no idea how
you're defining "diagnostic images" such that this is true, though.
And I've pretty much already said that.

>> 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.

So when a photojournalist takes a picture to objectively depict
reality, it's a "utilitarian image"?

> In hopes that it would help people understand why images lacking aesthetic choices also lack copyright.

I don't make aesthetic choices when I write backend server software.
But my software is copyrighted.

Maybe this wasn't the intent of the legislators when they codified US
copyright law.  I'm personally of the opinion that software probably
should have been protected by patents rather than copyright.  But the
de facto state of the law is almost the opposite of this - that
software is copyrighted, and maybe patented.

> 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?

I'd appreciate if you wouldn't make such sexist comments, and if you
wouldn't impute on me such motives.

I think you're abusing the terms "art" and "aesthetic".