Mailing List Archive: Re: Bridgeman v. Corel worldwide for Wikimedia Commons

Re: Bridgeman v. Corel worldwide for Wikimedia Commons - yes or no?

Aug 21, 2008, 11:29 AM

Post #1 of 5 (624 views)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

teun spaans wrote:
> While on holiday in Italy i took some pix of plants in a botanical garden.
> There was no admittance fee, it was publicly accessible.
>
> Can i upload the pix of the plants I took there, or does the owner of the
> botanical garden has some form of ownership?

This is not to say that the botanical garden doesn't claim restriction
on the use of images taken within its walls (in my experience,
non-commercial clauses are the norm). In fact, such restrictions are
quite commonplace for botanical gardens, zoological parks, and many
other facilities. This should not be mistaken for a claim of copyright;
and at most they might do is deny you access to their property in the
future.

- --
Cary Bass
Volunteer Coordinator

Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia
Foundation today: http://donate.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
Phone: 415.839.6885 x 601
Fax: 415.882.0495

E-Mail: cary@wikimedia.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkittB8ACgkQyQg4JSymDYkAjwCgoKJqIzuftvWznLSPBG2FWKWk
PPwAoMEo+nBhI0mQQKVIiql+4xXSsuhP
=jBwz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Bridgeman v. Corel worldwide for Wikimedia Commons - yes or no? [ In reply to ]

smolensk at eunet

Aug 21, 2008, 11:42 PM

Post #2 of 5 (588 views)

Permalink

Cary Bass wrote:
> teun spaans wrote:
>> While on holiday in Italy i took some pix of plants in a botanical garden.
>> There was no admittance fee, it was publicly accessible.
>>
>> Can i upload the pix of the plants I took there, or does the owner of the
>> botanical garden has some form of ownership?
>
> This is not to say that the botanical garden doesn't claim restriction
> on the use of images taken within its walls (in my experience,
> non-commercial clauses are the norm). In fact, such restrictions are
> quite commonplace for botanical gardens, zoological parks, and many
> other facilities. This should not be mistaken for a claim of copyright;
> and at most they might do is deny you access to their property in the
> future.

Actually, I think that a botanical garden could claim copyright on plant
layout or somesuch. I'm not aware that this has ever happened, however,
and of course panorama freedom would apply. Also not a problem when
photographing individual plants, unless they are [[living sculpture]]s.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Bridgeman v. Corel worldwide for Wikimedia Commons - yes or no? [ In reply to ]

teun.spaans at gmail

Aug 22, 2008, 2:48 AM

Post #3 of 5 (587 views)

Permalink

I just photographed individual plants, so layout does not come into
question.

There was no sign with a copyright claim or remark about photographs at the
entrance - in fact it was hard to find an entrance at all. The only sign we
found was a wooden sign "botanical garden" - that direction.

In hindsight, there may have been a text or direction on the walls of the
refugio (mountain hut), some 100 meters away, but we were glad to have
located the botanical garden at all, and didnt think of it.

On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 8:42 AM, Nikola Smolenski <smolensk@eunet.yu> wrote:

> Cary Bass wrote:
> > teun spaans wrote:
> >> While on holiday in Italy i took some pix of plants in a botanical
> garden.
> >> There was no admittance fee, it was publicly accessible.
> >>
> >> Can i upload the pix of the plants I took there, or does the owner of
> the
> >> botanical garden has some form of ownership?
> >
> > This is not to say that the botanical garden doesn't claim restriction
> > on the use of images taken within its walls (in my experience,
> > non-commercial clauses are the norm). In fact, such restrictions are
> > quite commonplace for botanical gardens, zoological parks, and many
> > other facilities. This should not be mistaken for a claim of copyright;
> > and at most they might do is deny you access to their property in the
> > future.
>
> Actually, I think that a botanical garden could claim copyright on plant
> layout or somesuch. I'm not aware that this has ever happened, however,
> and of course panorama freedom would apply. Also not a problem when
> photographing individual plants, unless they are [[living sculpture]]s.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Bridgeman v. Corel worldwide for Wikimedia Commons - yes or no? [ In reply to ]

smolensk at eunet

Aug 22, 2008, 2:58 AM

Post #4 of 5 (585 views)

Permalink

teun spaans wrote:
> I just photographed individual plants, so layout does not come into
> question.
>
> There was no sign with a copyright claim or remark about photographs at the
> entrance - in fact it was hard to find an entrance at all. The only sign we
> found was a wooden sign "botanical garden" - that direction.
>
> In hindsight, there may have been a text or direction on the walls of the
> refugio (mountain hut), some 100 meters away, but we were glad to have
> located the botanical garden at all, and didnt think of it.

Of course, I was semi-joking there.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Bridgeman v. Corel worldwide for Wikimedia Commons - yes or no? [ In reply to ]

cimonavaro at gmail

Aug 22, 2008, 4:23 AM

Post #5 of 5 (589 views)

Permalink

Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> Cary Bass wrote:
>
>> teun spaans wrote:
>>
>>> While on holiday in Italy i took some pix of plants in a botanical garden.
>>> There was no admittance fee, it was publicly accessible.
>>>
>>> Can i upload the pix of the plants I took there, or does the owner of the
>>> botanical garden has some form of ownership?
>>>
>> This is not to say that the botanical garden doesn't claim restriction
>> on the use of images taken within its walls (in my experience,
>> non-commercial clauses are the norm). In fact, such restrictions are
>> quite commonplace for botanical gardens, zoological parks, and many
>> other facilities. This should not be mistaken for a claim of copyright;
>> and at most they might do is deny you access to their property in the
>> future.
>>
>
> Actually, I think that a botanical garden could claim copyright on plant
> layout or somesuch.

I think the word you are searching for is "topiary". And it
definitely is an art.
> I'm not aware that this has ever happened, however,
> and of course panorama freedom would apply. Also not a problem when
> photographing individual plants, unless they are [[living sculpture]]s.
>

It would be amusing if panorama freedom would apply
to topiary, since the whole point of topiary is the creation
of panorama pleasing to the aesthetic sense.

Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l