Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8926211" data-attributes="member: 42582">It's not ad hominem to intervene on a thread discussing a technical topic, involving something fairly high stakes to the community, where a poster who (it seems) lacks the relevant technical expertise makes very strong assertions that are, in fact, false.See, this thing that you said about the photograph case is wildly wrong. No one in that case - neither party, nor the judge - had any doubt that copyright can exist in a photograph.Like I just did, they could Google the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and read the following sections:Section 1 (1)Copyright is a property right which subsists in accordance with this Part in the following descriptions of work— (a)original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works, Section 4 (1)In this Part “artistic work” means— (a)a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, irrespective of artistic quality,Here is a re-post of what the case is actually about:The case is all about the fact that the defendants copied the plaintiff's image. A section 15 statement in an OGL-licensed book is something like an admission of copying, because if you're not copying why put it there!No doubt there are things that parties licensed under the OGL can do to try and de-OGL-ify their content without being liable for copying, but the assertion that they cannot be liable for literally copying copyrighted text, or that if they turn their copy into loose paraphrase they'll be fine, are simply unwarranted.That's before we even get to the fact that they've all made contractual promises, which everyone here has spent the last N weeks arguing are irrevocable, not to use WotC's PI. What makes them think they're released from those obligations? I mean, maybe there's an argument but no one's told me what it is yet.</blockquote>

Verification