That might actually be licensed, though. -- Harry
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Richard Farmbrough <rich...@farmbrough.co.uk > wrote: > I wonder if http://www.popartuk.com/**photography/london/red-bus-on-** > westminster-bridge-ph0408-**poster.asp<http://www.popartuk.com/photography/london/red-bus-on-westminster-bridge-ph0408-poster.asp>would > have been considered enough to make the idea non-novel. > > > On 25/01/2012 22:23, geni wrote: > >> On 25 January 2012 19:18, Magnus >> Manske<magnusmanske@**googlemail.com<magnusman...@googlemail.com>> >> wrote: >> >>> ...photos that somehow look similar: >>> >>> http://www.**amateurphotographer.co.uk/**news/photographers_face_** >>> copyright_threat_after_shock_**ruling__news_311191.html<http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/photographers_face_copyright_threat_after_shock_ruling__news_311191.html> >>> >>> The servers are safe (well, relatively speaking) in the U.S., but >>> should people in the UK be concerned when uploading images? >>> >>> >>> Magnus >>> >> Nothing new here. Its always been understood that in theory if you see >> a photo and take another photo that is similar enough to it to be >> considered a derivative work that that is a copyright violation. >> However in most cases it would be extremely hard to prove and people >> don't care enough to try. >> >> > > ______________________________**_________________ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > wikimediau...@wikimedia.org > http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l<http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l> > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org >
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
