On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Adam Bolte <abolte@systemsaviour.com>wrote:
2. there exists things stranger than you think is this words. E.g. the Millau Viaduct was copyrighed *as design* by the architect (Lord Norman Foster) and still is. His lordship chose to grant *the management* of the intellectual property rights to the company that operates/maintains it< http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privc... . Now, you either use a browser with the Flash Payer installed, navigate to http://www.leviaducdemillau.com/en_index.php and, bottom of the page pick "Legale notice" to read it yourself, or you believe me when I'm saying that *this company is the sole legal entity that can grant the right for the use of the pictures of that bridge*.
Different jurisdictions surely have different copyright laws and interpretations too, so I'm not entirely surprised. Oh look - it's on Wikipedia under a CC BY-SA 3.0 license. ;)
:) Think you caught me pants down, are you ? :) No, you are not looking to the picture of Millau Viaduct, but at photo of Creiselles!. If you read the "Description" of the image file<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Creissels_et_Viaduct_de_Millau.jpg>, you'll find that the picture actually depicts: "*Blick auf Creissels* *mit der Autobahnbrücke im Hintergrund*" (translation: "*the **view of Creissels* *with the highway bridge in the background*"). If it would be a picture of the Millau Viaduct itself, you wouldn't be looking to it on Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is very serious about copyright (greed motivated or not). The explanation: if you go the http://www.leviaducdemillau.com/en_index.php and navigate/read the legal notice, you discover that: "no image exists ... of the Millau Viaduct that is "copyright free" (except images of landscapes in which the Viaduct, *shown into background*, *is not the main subject of the image*)" Adrian