The first version sent too soon and was almost unreadable, sorry if you 
struggled through it.  Here it is again with copy-editing.

On Jul 26, 2012, at 9:06 PM, wrote:

> On Jul 26, 2012, at 5:51 PM, Anthony <> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Ray Saintonge <> 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 mind 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 work. For a photo to become a derivative work you have to really 
> go beyond timing, lighting, point and click.
> This claim that photographs are 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 there was some error in to the 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 it is all 
> explained in lay terms with good examples instead of judicial terms.
> Birgitte SB
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Unsubscribe:

Wikimedia-l mailing list

Reply via email to