On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Anthony <wikim...@inbox.org> wrote: > At this point I'm starting to doubt whether or not Meshwerks even applies.
Heh, I'm reading Meshwerks (which I believe can be easily distinguished from X-ray images for many reasons, not the least of which is that it wasn't about a photograph, but about "digital wire-frame computer models"), and I came across this gem: "In addition, the work must "possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity," Feist, 499 U.S. at 345; see also William F. Patry, Patry on Copyright ยง 3:27 ("both independent creation and a minimal degree of creativity are required"), though this is not to say that to count as containing a minimal degree of creativity a work must have aesthetic merit in the minds of judges (arguably not always the most artistically discerning lot)." There's also this: "But what can be said, at least based on received copyright doctrine, to distinguish an independent creation from a copy? And how might that doctrine apply in an age of virtual worlds and digital media that seek to mimic the "real" world, but often do so in ways that undoubtedly qualify as (highly) original?" which pretty much directly counters the claim that an image made to objectively depict reality is not copyrightable. Here's another distinguishing feature of Meshwerks, from Meshwerks itself: "the facts in this case unambiguously show that Meshwerks did not make any decisions regarding lighting, shading, the background in front of which a vehicle would be posed, the angle at which to pose it, or the like -- in short, its models reflect none of the decisions that can make depictions of things or facts in the world, whether Oscar Wilde or a Toyota Camry, new expressions subject to copyright protection" Meshwerks is not applicable case law. I based my earlier comment about it on the summary at https://open.umich.edu/wiki/Casebook#Radiograph_.28X-Ray.29 , which I have now found is not what the case actually says. I thought that "there is no copyright protection when the purpose is to faithfully represent the underlying object" was a quote from the case. It isn't, and in fact the case doesn't say that at all. I very much appreciate that "people making copyright decisions in the wikis may be using this list as a tool for making those decisions". That's why I think it is important to point out flaws in the reasoning of posts made here, even if I do agree with their ultimate conclusion. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l