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"? > The photograph is secondary, derivative and imitative. Yes. > The photograph is not the first instance. The original photograph is the first instance of the photograph. This definition doesn't mean "the first instance of anything". If that were true then *nothing* would be original. I'd say by this definition in particular it is quite clear that there was an original photograph. A photo of an object is the first instance of a new thing, it is not a copy of the object itself. > 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 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 even done some significant post-processing. Someone definitely selected which camera to use, how many separate photographs to tile together, etc. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
