View Single Post
Old 07-10-2009, 06:55 AM   #19
Ea
Wizard
Ea ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ea ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ea ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ea ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ea ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ea ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ea ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ea ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ea ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ea ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Ea ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Ea's Avatar
 
Posts: 3,490
Karma: 5239563
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denmark
Device: Kindle 3|iPad air|iPhone 4S
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Tingle View Post
Wikipedia is welcome to use public domain or their own photos of the paintings. They just aren't welcome to use someone else's photos. Laziness is not a justification for the abrogation of copyright law, however flawed it is. And yes, copyright is one of the best ways of paying for creations of the mind.
AFAIK, there are restrictions on 2-dimensional reproductions of a painting - which a photo might well be (if it included the frame, it could be argued that it is 3-dimensional). I don't know this exact case (they might have used copyrighted photos), but it would still be a problem if I went to a museum, took a photo of a painting and cropped it, and put the photo in wikimedia commons. It could then be considered a "copy" of the original work. A photo of a sculpture is different, as it depicts something 3-dimensional, it would be considered my own work, not a copy.
Ea is offline   Reply With Quote