電影『痞子英雄首部曲：全面開戰』電影海報，已圓滿解決

Hsin Huang wrote:
請教我那裡說了？引言？都說請法官判決，別人改圖只PS一下，還是清楚可見Element用樓主的，你說"我是看不出來與樓主的照片具有實質相似性"，只能告訴你，你還不是法官

powerslide wrote:
又有人愛跳針了前面已...(恕刪)

powerslide wrote:
Element?
原來大樓建築外觀Element是樓主創作的?
不是建築師創作的?
再掰嗎
(恕刪)

powerslide wrote:
更何況那些建築物的外觀是建築師的創作...(恕刪)

ff7 wrote:
原來每棟建築物哪些樓層有開燈是建築公司設計的
再掰啊 看你要笑死誰

powerslide wrote:
Disagree about a cropping "wormhole". A crop is a separate work -- if that work violates copyright, then we would not allow the crop on Commons. We cannot control what other people do. For one example, there are French cases where photos of an entire plaza are not copyright violations, even if a photo of one particular building would be. In that situation, making a crop of a photo like that (to focus on a building or included sculpture) could definitely result in a copyright violation even if the original is not -- and I would emphatically not support trying to lower the allowed resolution on such photos.

powerslide wrote:
現在連開燈與否都可以主張著作權啦?
什麼時候我國著作權對於著作原創性的判斷標準變得這麼低了(恕刪)

Cudacke Dees wrote:
come back!
wake up!
We are not talking about a crop of the original work!

ff7 wrote:
氛圍也屬於影像的一部...(恕刪)

powerslide wrote:
你現在會談氛圍啦但是...(恕刪)