On Aug 23, 2012, at 8:05 AM, Anthony <wikim...@inbox.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:49 PM, <birgitte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> To reword what I said before the vast majority of X-ray images in existence
>> are diagnostic
>> images. There is no reason at all to purposefully search out X-rays that
>> might land in some
>> grey area.
>
> One problem with that is that the X-ray images that you are most
> likely to find are the most likely to have been created with the
> intention of being distributed.
>
I don't understand why "intention to distribute" would be relevant.
> On the other hand, if "probably no one will sue" is good enough for
> you, then you really don't need to ask the legal question in the first
> place.
That is not at all what I said, but you are quite good at striking down an
argument which I did not make and do not support!
Since there is so little left of what I said, I will rephrase: Diagnostic
images are not copyrighted and there are lots of interchangeable images that
are equally not copyrighted. If one of these interchangeable images credits
someone as a creator, and you are worried they "probably will sue", then use
another interchangeable image. Unless, of course, one purposefully wishes to be
a jerk about their understanding of copyright. And while I am sure someone
will, I wound prefer not to put any more effort in considering the situation.
(So please don't misquote me on this issue!)
>
>> Another rule of thumb: Most images, whatever they depict, are also
>> *designed* to be pleasing
>> to human aesthetics.
>
> I don't understand that. What are you using the term "human
> aesthetics" to mean?
I meant when creating a common photo no consideration is given to composition
of the infrared wavelengths. However, whether the photographer is very aware of
it or not, aesthetic choices are being made as the overall composition is
selected. It is really outside this topic, but I think the aesthetics which
happen please/disturb us are often evolutionary. I tend to always be connecting
things in my thinking, I didn't mean to have it spill over and muddy things
here. Don't read too much into and pretend I just wrote aesthetics. I doubt
any one but me would be reading that sentence and wondering whether non-humans
would find most pictures to be pleasing. Sorry for confusing the issue.
> And even if you're truer about most, that still leaves a great number
> which were not. Many images were in fact designed to be aesthetically
> displeasing.
I also wrote a sentence about copyrightable images being designed for
"aesthetic effect". While I think the statement you quoted works as *a rule of
thumb*, I purposefully did not limit the statement that followed to only
*pleasing* aesthetic effects.
>
> And many others were designed, like the X-ray image, to objectively
> depict reality.
>
> _____________________
Yes there are many such images.
These types of images are called utilitarian images.
Which is what prompted me to write about how copyright hangs upon aesthetic
choices. In hopes that it would help people understand why images lacking
aesthetic choices also lack copyright. I was very aware there are many such
images. I labeled my statement a rule of thumb not a universal rule.
I know this all sounds like I am very annoyed. I am really just slightly
annoyed ;)
Look copyright is really tough. Really. And most people, probably everyone to
some degree, misunderstands copyright. I honestly am happy to see you smack
down some of my statements, like you did about all the international agreements
working as bi-lateral treaties. I learned that Berne is different today, and
frankly I think that is awesome. I ran out of low hanging fruit wrt to
copyright a long time ago. I really appreciate the opportunity this thread has
offered me to gain a nuance to my understanding. Seriously.
But I don't appreciate the rhetorical twists that, instead of clarifying the
discussion, muddy things by making our that a sentence or two that wrote
support a position that I never took. Not that it bothers me personally. But it
confuses the discussion immensely for people who may have been struggling to
follow it in the beginning. A long time ago, when I knew *nothing* of
copyright, this list is where I managed to gather most of the low hanging
fruit. Eventually I had to search for understanding elsewhere, but I know
people making copyright decisions in the wikis may be using this list as a tool
for making those decisions. At one time, I was such a person.
So anyways . . . I know it's the internet and all . . . where men are compelled
to put on displays of rhetorical prowess as though they were peacocks . . . but
please . . . for the children and all that . . . Can we try to avoid picking
out the weakest snippets of writing for rhetorical displays and instead focus
on the heart of the positions to explore the issue in way that allows us to
both improve our understandings?
At least about copyright?
Birgitte SB
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
