2 ms·
From the article: "To claim copyright, the photographer would have had to make substantial contributions to the final image, and even then, they'd only have co
by jeroen 12y ago
From the article:
"To claim copyright, the photographer would have had to make substantial contributions to the final image, and even then, they'd only have copyright for those alterations, not the underlying image. This means that there was no one on whom to bestow copyright, so the image falls into the public domain," a recent transparency report from Wikimedia said.
Even if the photographer would not hold the copyright to the raw image, his post-processing would give him copyright to his alterations. Thus, the final image does not fall into the public domain and Wikimedia has no right to use it like they do.
- FireBeyond 12y agoRight, and there is very little “public good” to come of this other than “Wiki(pedi)a get to benefit from the traffic this might bring”.
- deong 12y agoI believe you need to substantially transform a public domain work in order to qualify for copyright on a derived work. If the original image is public domain, it's not clear that cropping and basic editing would qualify. I think Wikimedia is in the wrong here, for what it's worth, but I don't think it's clear cut either way.