On 07/27/12 7:15 AM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
I suppose that, like any good Wikimedian, we like to balance ourselves
on the edge cases. We can imagine many. The underlying case would be IOC
vs. Uploader. These other points about joint authorship and photo
editing really have more bearing on the identity of the defendant. They
could possibly arise, but at this stage they just obscure the main issue.
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 3:35 AM, Ray Saintonge<sainto...@telus.net> wrote:
I don't see that joint authorship enters into this at all. I think it's safe
to assume that the one holding the camera is the one making the creative
decisions about the photos.
Then continue to advise people that they are the sole owner of a
photograph just because they clicked the shutter.
My advice is that the law isn't that simple, and that blanket
statements of that type are quite often incorrect.
Suppose I take a photo of someone jumping over a hurdle. Most likely I'd alter
the raw image somewhat. At least change the white balance, the colour
saturation and mid grey point, but I might also change perspective, clone out
some elements, blur other parts, maybe de-emphasis the colour is some other
areas. The resulting image may be rather different to the image that was
Now asuppose that the I who takes the photo is not the same I that does the
Wikimedia-l mailing list