On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 01:18:09AM +0200, Ilmari Karonen wrote:
However, the Commons, like Wikimedia in general,
doesn't operate on that
principle; for them, the question is closer to "is it 99.9999% certain
that not only I, but also anyone else reusing this, will get away with
it?" Which is about as close to "is it legal?" as you can get.
I'm not sure that actually follows, but...
To use my
example, above, my taking a photograph of an artist posing
next to his painting does *not*, to me, seem to meet the description
there, quoted from the statute, of a derivative work, as it's not
*based* on the original painting: he could have been standing next to
*anything*.
You know, you could turn that around and claim equally well that the
photograph isn't based on the likeness of the artist, since *anyone*
could've been standing there next to the painting.
Your claim seems to be that the inclusion of the painting in the photo
is only incidental. Depending on the actual circumstances, this might
in fact be the case, if the main subject of the photo actually was the
artist and not the painting. Depending on other factors, such as
whether the painting was shown in its entirety or not, and whether your
photo might compete with the original painting or other works (such as
posters) based on it, you might be able to claim the use as fair -- or
you might not.
I'm actually pushing it farther than that: I'm asserting that *even if
the artist requested that I take his photo whilst he was showing off
said painting* (which perhaps he just won an award for) that the
appearance of the painting in the photograph is incidental and incurs
me no derivation of his copyright.
Let us examine news photography in that context, shall we?
Look at it this way: If I take the latest MTV hit
single, play it in the
background while recording myself repeating "Yo!" over and over again,
and release the recording as my own song, I *will* get sued and probably
lose no matter how hard I might claim that the song is merely incidental
background to my creative rapping.
Not the same situation, and I believe you realize that.
*Specifically*
though, what troubles me is the approach to the
characterization on Commons:Licensing. It seems to be making legal
assertions that may not actually be valid, when perhaps what it ought
to be saying is that the issue is not entirely clear, and Commons
chooses to err on the side of (over-)caution.
If you think this is the case, feel free to fix it (or suggest
improvements). Just try to be careful not to replace any existing legal
assertions with other equally dubious ones, express or implied.
Certainly. Why do you think I'm *submitting* myself to all this
ignominy. :-)
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth jra(a)baylink.com
Designer Baylink RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates The Things I Think '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA
http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274