LOL. How can it be proved that photograph x came from
source n? If its the exact same size, and the color
histogram matches etc... it might be legally sound.
But simply changing a size doesnt wipe the tracks
completely, and the obvious issue is do we actually
need to *cite a source for all our material -- to
prove that it didnt come from source n, by having
proof that it did come from source p... Is there any
clarity, dear copyright gurus, on this particular
distinction? Isnt this a case where altering images
(even a little) could be standard protocol to cover
this particular track?
Happy Sunday/Monday
-S-
--- daniwo59(a)aol.com wrote:
It's not the painting that is copyrighted but the
photgraph of the painting.
Unless the book is from before 1923, I would not
suggest it.
Danny
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com