Re: [WikiEN-l] Hijack, cont'd.

From: "Fred Bauder" <fredbaud-TAYJRwJN/[email protected]>
> >
> >> A photograph of public property is copyrightable of course, but, at
> >> least in Canada, taking a picture of an permanently placed building or
> >> outdoor statue is not a breach of copyright, even if you intend to
> >> publish the photograph.
> >
> > Oh really! That's very interesting. Even if the statue is still new
enough
> > to be under copyright in its own right?
> >
> > (This is helpful given the topic of the site I was collecting the photos
I
> > originally asked about for.)
> >
> > Matt
>
> You can imagine a number of different fact situations with images of
> creative works, a statue still in the artist's workshop, in a private
home,
> but on public display the situation is pretty clear, not a problem; a copy
> of a statue is a whole other matter, perhaps a hologram would be a
> significant fact change.
>
> Fred

If the it was necessary to get copyright clearance of everything displayed
in public then no one could ever satisfy such a burden and it would be
impossible to create images of public places.  Of course there are privacy
rights
issues when dealing with people not engaged in newsworthy activities,
but otherwise documenting something in public is not a problem (though
using an image of something that is owned even in public for some
promotional
or commercial purpose might be a problem in some fact patterns).

Once again, doesn't this discussion belong on Wikilegal-L? I am cross
posting
my reply there.

Alex756