On 22 August 2012 14:14, <birgitte...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 21, 2012, at 3:17 PM, Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:19 PM, geni <geni...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 21 August 2012 19:44, <birgitte...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Utilitarian work = uncopyrightable >>> >>> >>> Only under a fairly limited number of legal systems. >>> >>> > > [[ciatation needed]]
Short answer is that the term "Utilitarian work" doesn't appear in French, British or US copyright law and no one else had a worthwhile empire during the relevant time period. > I really doubt non-artistic works are copyrighted as a general rule anywhere > (. . . but I have been wrong before). Well EU database copyright would be an a counter example but thats rather an oddball area. In the case of the US we can consider the constitutional basis of copyright "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." So there is no reason why a scientific work with no artistic element wouldn't be protected by copyright. > Now clearly being able to judge that X is a utilitarian work is the more > normal problem with this argument and why it is seldom used. No the argument isn't use because the term has no meaning. I think perhaps you are referring to the concept of "useful article" however I'm not aware of any photograph ever being considered a pure useful article. >Diagnostic images are one of the few clear-cut situations. They aren't per Duchamp and the found art movement. -- geni _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
