[Wikimedia-l] photography restrictions at the Olympics

[Birgitte_sb at yahoo.com]

The first version sent too soon and was almost unreadable, sorry if you struggled through it.  Here it is again with copy-editing.


On Jul 26, 2012, at 9:06 PM, Birgitte_sb at yahoo.com wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 26, 2012, at 5:51 PM, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>>> Copyrights wouldn't apply because you own the copyrights in the pictures you
>>> take.
>> 
>> Maybe.  You own the copyright fully if you are the sole contributor of
>> the creative input which went into the picture.  If someone else also
>> contributed, then you might own the copyright in the picture as a
>> derivative work (extending only to your contributions), <snip>
> 
> I hope you don' t mind my picking out this piece from your email and ignoring the rest.

> Simply photographing a copyrighted work does NOT create a photograph that is a derivative work. For a photo to become a derivative work you have to really go beyond timing, lighting, point and click.
> 
> This claim that photographs are derivative works came up just a few weeks ago in the trademark discussion.  I never directly addressed this issue during that discussion. While I felt certain there was some error in to the claim, I could not recall the reasoning behind the counter-point.  I just came across the in-depth discussion.  If anyone is interested the links follow, and don't forget to read the comments.  The comments are actually were it is all explained in lay terms with good examples instead of judicial terms.
> 
> http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.html
> http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.html
> 
> Birgitte SB
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l