2009/7/18 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonav...@gmail.com>: > What is most striking to my mind in this issue of > use of images, is how the status quo differs from > that with regard to _texts_.
I suspect it's simply that with images - where the physical single "master copy" is quantitatively different for publishing purposes - it's a lot easier to assert a dodgy sort-of-copyright than it is with a textual work. The traditional approach is to say - "sorry, you can't take a photograph or a scan of it. Oh, you want to publish it? Well, as luck would have it, we can sell you a scan. $500. Oh, and there's terms and conditions on that - you've got to credit us, you've got to destroy that intermediate copy once you've set up the publication, you can only use it in specified ways... why, yes, it is still in the public domain, why do you ask? Oh. If you don't want to abide by this contract, then good luck finding someone else who'll have a good-quality print." You can't really do that sort of footwork with a published work, since setting up a faithful copy of it requires nothing more specialised than a book and a typesetter. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
