On 08/20/12 12:17 PM, geni wrote:
This certainly sums it up. Personality rights are a separate issue, and
in most cases it should be easy to separate them except maybe conjoined
twins and people who have swallowed a charm bracelet with their name
clearly exposed. Breach of contractual rights and employment contracts
are also a separate matter. It's actually easier to deal with these
because something is spelled out. Our concern is more with situations
where nothing is expressed before the problem comes up.
On 20 August 2012 12:52, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 20 August 2012 12:50, Anthony <wikim...@inbox.org> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 7:47 AM, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm sure that collectively we can bloviate with the best of 'em on the
topic - but do we have any case law whatsoever anywhere on the topic
that might give real-world pointers?
It's a question of fact, not a question of law.
Then any real-world examples of the question arising.
I doubt it. Most X-rays aren't worth enough to be worth suing over and
the handful that are mostly derive for the scientific community who
tend not to sue people over the issue of copyright.
My basic view is that the X-ray is copyrightable with the ownership of
the copyright vesting in the person who invested most of the
originality. If that person is bold enough to be the *first* person to
put that image in fixed form there will be a presumption that he has a
right to do so. Who is going to challenge him? A DMCA takedown order
won't work, because it must reference the work that was infringed as
well as the infringement. To get any more than provable damages the
copyright must also be registered.
It may give comfort to owners to know that copyright in a work is
automatic without registration, but the down side of this is a huge
assortment of material is copyright where the "true" owner has neither
the knowledge or desire for this kind of protection.
Wikimedia-l mailing list