On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote: > By the common meaning of the word "original", I'd say the photograph > *is* original. OTOH, under US precedent it *probably* isn't within > the US legal meaning of the term.
I should add that, in my US analysis, I was making the assumption that there was no creative post-processing of the photograph, which on second thought is not a safe assumption. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
