QUOTE
Copyright and the National Portrait Gallery
The Gallery is a strong supporter of free entry - we don't think visitors should have to pay to see the Collection. Those who may never be able to visit us can enjoy and learn about the Collection through images published in books and magazines, and on television and the internet.
Good on them, but...
QUOTE
The Gallery's image licensing department raises money by licensing reproductions, thus supporting both the free entry policy and the Gallery's main functions caring for its Collection and engaging people with its works.
So, if I am affluent enough to own a computer and an internet connection, I can view these great works for "free." But if I want a copy to hang on the wall of my office, I have to pay, even though the original is undisputedly in the public domain.
Here's a thought experiment...suppose the copyright claim on the photo reproductions holds up in the UK courts. Can the NPG extend their copyright claim indefinitely by arranging to have photographs
of the photographs taken every 69 years? If not, then why does copyright protect the first generation photo? If so, how does this comport with the fundamental purpose of copyright, which is to encourage artistic expression for the benefit of all mankind by granting a temporary exclusive right to exploit. And do you think that people who stage Oscar Wilde or G&S or Shakespeare plays should be paying royalties to the heirs?