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.

http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.html
http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.html

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

Reply via email to