On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Nick Hocking <[email protected]> wrote:
> Since taking a photo of something entails little or no "independent > intellectual effort", On 21 December 2010 13:08, Steve Bennett <[email protected]> wrote: > In what context? Obviously artistic photography is copyrightable. And even non-artistic photography... However, this case draws a real distinction between the human process of originality, and an automated process according to a set of rules. I've no doubt that if I take a photo out of an aeroplane window that copyright subsists in that photo. However, it would be interesting to see what the courts would now make of a satellite taking photos automatically according to a standard process of the earths surface. Ian. _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
