> The decision specifically and repeatedly states that the commercial
> aspect is irrelevant, as such a database "typically has a not
> insignificant commercial value" – whether the images in this
> particular case are or can be used commercially or not. See paragraphs
> 21 and 23.
> //Johan Jönsson
> --

Note that "not insignificant" = significant. The decision points exactly
that the commercial aspect is relevant, and the artists should have
participation on it.
"The court finds that the artists are entitled to that value"[1], this is
what the decision says, at least according to The Guardian. I couldn't
understand the original decision, even if i have had access to it.
What is found in these paragraphs you've mentioned?


Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to