> The decision specifically and repeatedly states that the commercial > aspect is irrelevant, as such a database "typically has a not > insignificant commercial value" – whether the images in this > particular case are or can be used commercially or not. See paragraphs > 21 and 23. > > //Johan Jönsson > -- >
Note that "not insignificant" = significant. The decision points exactly that the commercial aspect is relevant, and the artists should have participation on it. "The court finds that the artists are entitled to that value"[1], this is what the decision says, at least according to The Guardian. I couldn't understand the original decision, even if i have had access to it. What is found in these paragraphs you've mentioned? CasteloBranco [1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/05/wikimedias-free-photo-database-of-artworks-violates-copyright-court-rules _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
