On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Ryan Kaldari <rkald...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > As far as law outside the U.S. is concerned, the Feist decision has had > more of an impact than Bridgeman (probably because it was a Supreme > Court decision). Since Feist (1991), many common > law<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law> countries have moved > towards applying the "threshold of originality" standard and away from > the "sweat of the brow" standard.[1] Canada, for example, now largely > follows Feist. Even UK jurisprudence is gradually transitioning (and is > currently inconsistent).
UK requires originality. But it's not at all clear that a photograph of something out of copyright is unoriginal (even if that something is "two dimensional"). By the common meaning of the word "original", I'd say the photograph *is* original. OTOH, under US precedent it *probably* isn't within the US legal meaning of the term. In any case, any copyright on the photograph of course does not extend to the text. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l