|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
clipka wrote:
> Darren New schrieb:
>>> Hum... then can't we just argue that the sculpture in question is an
>>> architectural work? ;-)
>>
>> I think it likely is, yes.
>
> (I fear it actually isn't. Or does it qualify as a "building"?)
Oh, sorry. Reading it again, I thought it said "structure" and not
"building". So buildings can be copyrighted but not bridges? Odd.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |