On Jul 26, 2012, at 5:51 PM, Anthony <wikim...@inbox.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Ray Saintonge <sainto...@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 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 works. For a photo to be a derivative work you have to really 
go beyond timing, lighting, point and click.

This claim of photographs as 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 at the time, there was some error in this 
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 is explained 
in lay terms instead judicial terms.


Birgitte SB
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Reply via email to