On 29/09/11 04:12, Anthony wrote: > On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Nikola Smolenski<smole...@eunet.rs> wrote: >> On 28/09/11 13:44, Anthony wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Nikola Smolenski<smole...@eunet.rs> >>> wrote: >>>> The photograph does not constitute an origin or beginning. >>> >>> Sure it does. Is there any such thing as an "original photograph"? >> >> Yes there is, and this isn't it. > > Why not? What constitutes an original photograph, as opposed to > whatever this photograph is?
An original photograph is a photograph that fixes an original image. >>>> The photograph is not the first instance. >>> >>> The original photograph is the first instance of the photograph. This >> >> Copyright does not protect physical objects. The image that is fixed on >> the first instance of the physical photograph is not the first instance >> of the image. > > Sure it is. I'm not sure where you're getting that from. Sure it is not in this case. > And if it isn't (which, you'll have to explain), can that be said > about *any* photograph? No. >>>> The photograph is not independent or creative. >>> >>> Someone most likely selected the F-stop, the shutter speed, and the >>> lighting. I doubt they just pointed the camera on auto and used the >> >> The fact that you can devise a creative method to create an image does >> not mean that the image itself is creative. > > No, it doesn't. However, I am contending that creativity most likely > *did* go into creating the image. So then why are you mentioning F-stop, shutter speed and lighting, neither of which add any creativity to these images? >>> built in flash. Someone most likely selected how to convert the raw >>> image into a jpeg or png or whatever they're using. They may have >> >> How the hell is that creative? > > Have you ever converted a raw image into a jpeg? If you have, then I > would think you'd know how the hell it is creative. > > For one thing, you're converting 12 or 14 bits of color data per pixel > into 8. So you have to select what information to lose, and what > information to keep. I would assume that in this case the goal of the conversion was to preserve the most data, and not to add a creative touch to the images. >>> even done some significant post-processing. Someone definitely >> >> Post-processing could be creative, but the original photographs still >> are not. > > The original photographs (*) are not what are displayed on the website. > > (*) I thought you said these weren't "original photographs". Now you're just trolling. The original physical photographs, as opposed to unoriginal images displayed on the photographs. >>> selected which camera to use, how many separate photographs to tile >> >> This must be the worst pro-copyright argument of all times. > > You need to reread what I said. I was not making a pro-copyright argument. You need to rewrite what you wrote so that it reflects what you meant. You were making a pro-copyright argument. >> So I have >> two copiers in my company, and since I selected one of them the >> photocopies I made are *original* and copyrighted by me? They are not. > > And I didn't say they were. Yes you did. >>> together, etc. >> >> This choice is limited by technical possibilities of the devices and not >> by someone's creative decision. > > Our choices are always limited by the technical possibilities of the > devices we are using. So what? _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
