File talk:Caesar statue.jpg

`It's not the author of the sculpture but the author of the image who has a copyright, you fucking moron. MarcusTrolliusCicero (talk) 04:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Trollius is correct in this instance. Is the image under free license? 04:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Julius_Caesar_Coustou_Louvre_MR1798.jpg -- 04:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually he is wrong, there is no original authorship in taking the photo of a statue. 04:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is. Photography is an art form, and one can photograph a statue at any sort of angle or in any sort of light. 04:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe, just. It would be nice if there was ever a court ruling on this sort of thing. 04:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You shitstains are telling me that you think the author of a photograph of the Statue of Liberty doesn't have a copyright in the image? MarcusTrolliusCicero (talk) 05:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You might be able to argue the point more effectively if you did not address its opponents as "s***stains." 05:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The point of law is the point of law. These morons are morons. Why not call a spade a spade? Are you worried? MarcusTrolliusCicero (talk) 05:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One does not convince a moron of anything by repeatedly calling him such. Machiavelli: Better to be feared and loved than feared and hated. 05:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Per veritatem vis, asshole. MarcusTrolliusCicero (talk) 06:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)