On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 07:01:03PM -0500, Elías Alejandro wrote: > > > > You mention that the upstream author *transformed* the image. > > Mechanical > > > > transformations (such as compilation of source code) do not normally > > have > > > > copyright associated with them, so the copyright of cat.pzl would > > probably > > > > be the same as for cat.jpg. > > > > > > > yes, would probably... but I think *transformed* image holder is upstream > > > author so copyright belong to him or I'm wrong... > > That depends what the transformation *is*. You would need to explain how > > it's been transformed for anyone here to give an educated opinion. > Well, it seems upstream-author catch this image and then *transformed* as > a .pzl file (puzzle image file) all of this for create jigsaw game. Into > upstream source ONLY there are these puzzle images and he mentions about > its copyright/licenses, but there aren't jpeg,png... (source files). Right, that's more or less what I thought it would be. It is unlikely that the transformation from a jpg to a "puzzle image file" includes any creative contribution; if this is an algorithmic transformation, then I believe *only* copyright interest in the .pzl file is from the copyright holder of the original image. If you believe that there is a creative element to the way the .pzl file is being made, then the correct copyright holder would be *both* the copyright holder of the original image *and* the software author who has made the change to the file. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature