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