On Aug 22, 2012, at 9:22 AM, Anthony <wikim...@inbox.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 9:14 AM,  <birgitte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I really doubt non-artistic works are copyrighted as a general rule anywhere
> I'm not sure what you mean by "non-artistic", but if you mean "purely
> utilitarian", as that term is interpreted by the court, then this is a
> good point.
> I was going to suggest UK, but a quick search suggests that you
> *can't* copyright purely "utilitarian" works in the UK.
> (I wouldn't use the term "non-artistic" though.  There are plenty of
> works that are copyrighted in the US and all over that I wouldn't
> consider "art", and while an argument could be made that such works
> shouldn't be copyrightable, court precedent is clearly adverse to that
> argument.),  

I believe artistic/non-artistic is accurate for images. Technically it is 
artistic, literary, dramatic, or musical works. The rules can change a bit as 
you change mediums, so when we are talking about an image I am talking about 
copyright wrt to images.
>> 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. Diagnostic images are one of the 
>> few clear-cut
>> situations.
> How do you distinguish whether or not it is a "diagnostic image", and
> what makes it clear-cut?
> Even using the term "utilitarian" rather than "artistic" I can still
> come up with a large number of examples of things which seem pretty
> "clear-cut" as "utilitarian" to me, but yet which receive copyright
> protection.  gzip, for instance.

I actually expanded on this at the end of my last email. If that doesn't 
clarify, ask again and explain what gzip is.
>> And even if it is only the US, other countries would not recognize copyright 
>> on diagnostic
>> images created in the US, which gives us at least the NASA situation.
> Do you have a citation for this?  Also, is it where the image is
> created, or where it is first published, or something else?
Copyright, internationally, is bilateral agreements. If it is not protected in 
the US, it cannot demand bilateral protection elsewhere.  It would be based on 
the jurisdiction of creation.  Publication has had nothing to do with the 
creation of copyright since the 1970's as far as I am aware.  Before 1976, in 
the US, place of publication was significant for determining copyright 
protection because of the notice requirement. Now copyright is automatic at 

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

Reply via email to