File talk:Caesar statue.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
`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? ListenerXTalkerX 04:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Julius_Caesar_Coustou_Louvre_MR1798.jpg --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 04:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Actually he is wrong, there is no original authorship in taking the photo of a statue. - π 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. ListenerXTalkerX 04:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe, just. It would be nice if there was ever a court ruling on this sort of thing. - π 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." ListenerXTalkerX 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. ListenerXTalkerX 05:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Per veritatem vis, asshole. MarcusTrolliusCicero (talk) 06:00, 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. ListenerXTalkerX 05:53, 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)
- You might be able to argue the point more effectively if you did not address its opponents as "s***stains." ListenerXTalkerX 05:42, 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)
- Maybe, just. It would be nice if there was ever a court ruling on this sort of thing. - π 04:40, 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. ListenerXTalkerX 04:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Actually he is wrong, there is no original authorship in taking the photo of a statue. - π 04:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Julius_Caesar_Coustou_Louvre_MR1798.jpg --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 04:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)