File talk:HonusWagnerCard.jpg

Copyright
"there was no creative input by the photographer" Whose opinion is this? Has anyone consulted the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum? It seems to me this is a simple assertion which doesn't hold water. There is always creative input by the photographer - I don't recall seeing that listed as an acceptable rationale.81.154.246.173 (talk) 13:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's the "opinion" of the person who tagged the picture ( User:MER-C, if I read the history correctly Sorry, the image was transfered from wikimedia commons - User:Wickethewok did the original tagging.). I don't know what's controversial about the decision, for any reasonable definition of "creative input". There is no denying that the card itself is out of copyright, and a faithful, evenly lit, straight-on reproduction is pretty much the textbook definition of "no creative input" -- the photographer is not adding to or changing the image, and any other person who would want to reproduce the image would choose exactly the same conditions. Additionally, the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum is not an impartial source or expert on copyright law. While I do not know if it would be the case with the NBHFM, it is a well known phenomenon that certain entities will claim rights that they technically do not have. Regardless of their opinion of the matter, the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum does not get to decide what copyright law means. (Nor does Wikipedia, for that matter, but the Wikimedia foundation has lawyers who have reviewed the law, and who have determined, by examining the law and relevant court decisions, that copyright does not apply to faithful reproductions of two-dimensional objects which are themselves out of copyright.) -- 128.104.112.47 (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * For more information, please see Bridgeman v. Corel and Feist v. Rural.  howcheng  {chat} 20:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)