On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:34 AM, <birgitte...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Aug 22, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Anthony <wikim...@inbox.org> wrote: >> I could be wrong, but I'm not sure there's a requirement for aesthetic >> or artistic purpose. Non-fiction, software, legal contracts, etc., >> all have been held to be copyrightable. > > I think you are overestimating the very minimal amount of creativity that is > required to here.
Not at all. I'm just saying that creativity isn't necessarily art. A legal contract may be quite creative. But it isn't art. >> Either way, it's a question of fact what instructions were given to >> the X-ray tech, as well as whether or not the tech followed them. >> > > I disagree here, the intention of the creator has no more to do with > copyright than effort > expended. Hmm...you may be right on that. If I accidentally spill some paint on a canvas and it creates an image that looks like the Virgin Mary, do I have a copyright on the image? I'm not sure what the case law is on that one. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimediaemail@example.com Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l