You're right, the topic is done. Filing it under WP:SILLY would be the
icing on the cake.
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Michael Peel
wrote:
> Best all around to simply destroy the evidence (by eating it?).
>
> ... can this topic end now? Or be moved on-wiki so that it can be filed
> under WP:SI
Best all around to simply destroy the evidence (by eating it?).
... can this topic end now? Or be moved on-wiki so that it can be filed under
WP:SILLY?
Thanks,
Mike
On 5 Mar 2012, at 23:23, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 5 March 2012 23:14, Lodewijk wrote:
>> eating the cake would damage the moral
On 5 March 2012 23:14, Lodewijk wrote:
> eating the cake would damage the moral rights of the logo author. Since he
> cannot give general permission to violate moral rights, eating the cake
> would be illegal.
If you take a slice out of the cake, that could be an issue since you
have created a ne
eating the cake would damage the moral rights of the logo author. Since he
cannot give general permission to violate moral rights, eating the cake
would be illegal.
No dia 5 de Março de 2012 23:08, David Gerard escreveu:
> On 5 March 2012 22:07, geni wrote:
> > On 5 March 2012 20:40, Chris Keat
On 5 March 2012 22:07, geni wrote:
> On 5 March 2012 20:40, Chris Keating wrote:
>> I suspect a court would hold that the set of "cakes" is disjoint from the
>> set of "objects on permanent display", and thus that a photograph of cake
>> can never benefit from freedom of panorama.
> Well you sa
On 5 March 2012 20:40, Chris Keating wrote:
> I suspect a court would hold that the set of "cakes" is disjoint from the
> set of "objects on permanent display", and thus that a photograph of cake
> can never benefit from freedom of panorama.
Well you say that but slices of Charles and Diana's wed
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Mike Christie wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Chris Keating >wrote:
>
> > I suspect a court would hold that the set of "cakes" is disjoint from the
> > set of "objects on permanent display", and thus that a photograph of cake
> > can never benefit from fr
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Chris Keating wrote:
> I suspect a court would hold that the set of "cakes" is disjoint from the
> set of "objects on permanent display", and thus that a photograph of cake
> can never benefit from freedom of panorama.
>
You mean we can't have the cake and eat it t
On 5 March 2012 20:22, geni wrote:
> On 5 March 2012 14:54, Richard Symonds
> wrote:
>> Silly question for you all:
>>
>> Is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_cake.jpg actually
>> copyrighted to the WMF as a WMF logo? The cake was made for Wikimedia UK, so
>> it's technically a de
>
>
>
> > Does the author
> > (Jezhotwells) have the ability to release it under a free licence, if
> s/he
> > wishes?
>
> No but if they put it on permanent display in a public place the photo
> would probably be totally fine under UK freedom of panorama law.
I suspect a court would hold that th
On 5 March 2012 14:54, Richard Symonds wrote:
> Silly question for you all:
>
> Is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_cake.jpg actually
> copyrighted to the WMF as a WMF logo? The cake was made for Wikimedia UK, so
> it's technically a derivative work, perhaps...
Its a derivative wo
The cake designer can only release his/her part of the creative process
under a free license (baking the cake/making the photo). I would suggest to
just specifiy that the logo-part is copyright WMF, the photographic and
cake-baking component to be released under CC-BY (not -SA to avoid the SA
claus
Silly question for you all:
Is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_cake.jpg actually
copyrighted to the WMF as a WMF logo? The cake was made for Wikimedia
UK, so it's technically a derivative work, perhaps...
Any ideas what the copyright status of this should be? Does the author
13 matches
Mail list logo
