![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
John Limey |
![]()
Post
#1
|
Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 387 Joined: Member No.: 12,473 ![]() |
See the letter issued by solicitors for the UK National Portrait Gallery. Looks like the WMF and User:Dcoetzee might be headed for some serious trouble.
Naturally some idiot of an admin came along to block the account used to send the email immediately per WP:NLT. Yea... |
![]() ![]() |
Kato |
![]()
Post
#2
|
dhd ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 5,521 Joined: Member No.: 767 ![]() |
I heard a Wikipedia Weekly podcast a while back where they discussed a similar incident. The Wikipedio was threatened with legal action for copying photographs of non-copyrighted artwork, but the threat was toothless and merely designed to put people off. The podcast was naturally in favor of the Wikipedio (big free culture activists and all that) and they seemed to agree that the Gallery had no right to threaten to sue over photographs of non-copyrighted material. They seemed to know what they were talking about as well.
However, this section of this claim interests me: QUOTE There is a common misconception that, as a result of the decision in Bridgeman v. Corel, copyright can never subsist in a photograph of a painting. That conclusion is erroneous because: 1. the judgment in Bridgeman v. Corel is a decision of the US Courts and therefore, whilst it might amount to a precedent under US law, it has no effect under UK law; and 2. in the UK, whilst the precise circumstances that gave rise to the Bridgeman v. Corel litigation have never been the subject matter of a claim decided before the UK Courts, practicing lawyers and legal academics alike generally agree that under a UK law analysis the judgment in Bridgeman v. Corel is wrong and that copyright can subsist in a photograph of a painting. For the avoidance of doubt, the allegation of copyright infringement made against you below is an allegation under UK law. Furthermore, we can confirm that every one of the images that you have copied is the product of a painstaking exercise on the part of the photographer that created the image in which significant time, skill, effort and artistry have been employed and that there can therefore be no doubt that under UK law all of those images are copyright works under s.1(1)(a) of the CDPA. Whether the Wikipedios end up being in the clear or not legally, the bolded section (if true), says to me that National Portrait Gallery are morally entitled to press a case. (update) Naturally some idiot of an admin came along to block the account used to send the email immediately per WP:NLT. Yea... I hadn't read that when I posted the above, and was going to post something similar as a joke, "I bet they block the National Portrait Gallery for making legal threats!" etc. GeorgeWilliamHerbert, the blocking admin, has long been identified here as one of the stupidiest figures Wikipedia has produced. Everything he does is preposterously wrong, and I once advised that his posts should be accompanied by the Laurel and Hardy theme tune. |
TungstenCarbide |
![]()
Post
#3
|
Allegedly shot down by stray Ukrainian missile ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 1,405 Joined: Member No.: 10,787 ![]() |
I heard a Wikipedia Weekly podcast a while back where they discussed a similar incident. The Wikipedio was threatened with legal action for copying photographs of non-copyrighted artwork, but the threat was toothless and merely designed to put people off. The podcast was naturally in favor of the Wikipedio (big free culture activists and all that) and they seemed to agree that the Gallery had no right to threaten to sue over photographs of non-copyrighted material. They seemed to know what they were talking about as well. However, this section of this claim interests me: QUOTE There is a common misconception that, as a result of the decision in Bridgeman v. Corel, copyright can never subsist in a photograph of a painting. That conclusion is erroneous because: 1. the judgment in Bridgeman v. Corel is a decision of the US Courts and therefore, whilst it might amount to a precedent under US law, it has no effect under UK law; and 2. in the UK, whilst the precise circumstances that gave rise to the Bridgeman v. Corel litigation have never been the subject matter of a claim decided before the UK Courts, practicing lawyers and legal academics alike generally agree that under a UK law analysis the judgment in Bridgeman v. Corel is wrong and that copyright can subsist in a photograph of a painting. For the avoidance of doubt, the allegation of copyright infringement made against you below is an allegation under UK law. Furthermore, we can confirm that every one of the images that you have copied is the product of a painstaking exercise on the part of the photographer that created the image in which significant time, skill, effort and artistry have been employed and that there can therefore be no doubt that under UK law all of those images are copyright works under s.1(1)(a) of the CDPA. Whether the Wikipedios end up being in the clear or not legally, the bolded section (if true), says to me that National Portrait Gallery are morally entitled to press a case. Nah, no moral justification. They might be legally entitled to bring a test case, but under no stretch of the imagination are they morally entitled. The copyrights on those paintings are expired. Nobody looks at them to admire the photographer's skill, and there is no moral justification for making money off the work of some guy who died 300 years ago. The skillful |
GlassBeadGame |
![]()
Post
#4
|
Dharma Bum ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 7,919 Joined: From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West. Member No.: 981 ![]() |
Nah, no moral justification. They might be legally entitled to bring a test case, but under no stretch of the imagination are they morally entitled. The copyrights on those paintings are expired. Nobody looks at them to admire the photographer's skill, and there is no moral justification for making money off the work of some guy who died 300 years ago. The skillful I'm no expert on copyright but I quite certain the act of creation they are concerned with is the photograph of the painting, not the painting itself. The case cited would appear to make this not protected under US copyright law. But their point is "this is London calling..." |
TungstenCarbide |
![]()
Post
#5
|
Allegedly shot down by stray Ukrainian missile ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 1,405 Joined: Member No.: 10,787 ![]() |
Nah, no moral justification. They might be legally entitled to bring a test case, but under no stretch of the imagination are they morally entitled. The copyrights on those paintings are expired. Nobody looks at them to admire the photographer's skill, and there is no moral justification for making money off the work of some guy who died 300 years ago. The skillful I'm no expert on copyright but I quite certain the act of creation they are concerned with is the photograph of the painting, not the painting itself. The case cited would appear to make this not protected under US copyright law. But their point is "this is London calling..." I agree, legally speaking. But the Gallery is trying to use the 'photographers skill' to gain the value of the artist's original work. Maybe that's doable in UK law, i don't know, but I think it's morally wrong. Nobody's interested in the photographer's skill, they are interested in the artists painting. If it was a crappy photo it'd still be used if nothing else was available. This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide: |
Kato |
![]()
Post
#6
|
dhd ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 5,521 Joined: Member No.: 767 ![]() |
I agree, legally speaking. But think about it - if the only photo available was crappy it'd still be used in the Wikipedia article. Nobody's interested in the photographer's skill, there are interested in the artists painting. Yet the Gallery is trying to use the 'photographers skill' to gain the value of the artist's original work. Maybe that's doable in UK law, i don't know, but I think it's morally wrong. You seem to be pouring doubt and scorn on the claim that it takes skill to photograph certain artworks for a high quality collections. What do you think professional photographers who make their living on this do when they arrive at a gallery? Take a few polaroid snaps in 20 minutes then go for a cigarette? It takes time and money to produce quality reproductions of artworks. |
Peter Damian |
![]()
Post
#7
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 4,400 Joined: Member No.: 4,212 ![]() |
You seem to be pouring doubt and scorn on the claim that it takes skill to photograph certain artworks for a high quality collections. What do you think professional photographers who make their living on this do when they arrive at a gallery? Take a few polaroid snaps in 20 minutes then go for a cigarette? It takes time and money to produce quality reproductions of artworks. I work with digital versions of manuscripts and there is no doubt that a professionally produced photograph is superior in many ways to non-professionally produced versions. It takes expensive equipment to get the lighting correct (otherwise you get all sorts of shadows and effects that shouldn't be there), and to get the angle correct and so on. I sometimes produce my own versions but they are far inferior. We should perhaps have a separate thread on another moral issue of Wikipedia: that it removes work from honest people. The true cost of reproductions, of writing encyclopedias and so on is fairly high because people who do this for an actual living have to live. |
TungstenCarbide |
![]()
Post
#8
|
Allegedly shot down by stray Ukrainian missile ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 1,405 Joined: Member No.: 10,787 ![]() |
You seem to be pouring doubt and scorn on the claim that it takes skill to photograph certain artworks for a high quality collections. What do you think professional photographers who make their living on this do when they arrive at a gallery? Take a few polaroid snaps in 20 minutes then go for a cigarette? It takes time and money to produce quality reproductions of artworks. I work with digital versions of manuscripts and there is no doubt that a professionally produced photograph is superior in many ways to non-professionally produced versions. It takes expensive equipment to get the lighting correct (otherwise you get all sorts of shadows and effects that shouldn't be there), and to get the angle correct and so on. I sometimes produce my own versions but they are far inferior. We should perhaps have a separate thread on another moral issue of Wikipedia: that it removes work from honest people. The true cost of reproductions, of writing encyclopedias and so on is fairly high because people who do this for an actual living have to live. It also takes skill and expensive equipment to machine a fine bearing race. That doesn't mean the machinist owns a copyright on it. Why should it be so for a photograph of a masterpiece? 'Creativity' is inherent in copyright law. Where the hell is NYB when we need him. This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide: |
Peter Damian |
![]()
Post
#9
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 4,400 Joined: Member No.: 4,212 ![]() |
It also takes skill and expensive equipment to machine a fine bearing race. That doesn't mean the machinist owns a copyright on it. Why should it be so for a photograph of a masterpiece? 'Creativity' is inherent in copyright law. Where the hell is NYB when we need him. No but the company that employs that person owns the copyright. On the supposedly complex legal situation, the letter supposedly from Farrers refers to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 http://www.england-legislation.hmso.gov.uk...880048_en_2#pt1 which says QUOTE Copyright is a property right which subsists in accordance with this Part in the following descriptions of work— (a) original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works, [...] where "artistic work†means— (a) a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, irrespective of artistic quality," This post has been edited by Peter Damian: |
Push the button |
![]()
Post
#10
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 107 Joined: Member No.: 10,967 ![]() |
On the supposedly complex legal situation, the letter supposedly from Farrers refers to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 http://www.england-legislation.hmso.gov.uk...880048_en_2#pt1 which says QUOTE Copyright is a property right which subsists in accordance with this Part in the following descriptions of work— (a) original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works, [...] where "artistic work†means— (a) a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, irrespective of artistic quality," As I said earlier, with a little added emphasis this time around : QUOTE ...clearly such a photograph would fall at the very first hurdle (which the attorneys' letter actually cites) of the relevant legislation, which states that copyright subsists in original artistic works... Where's the originality in a photograph which merely reproduces an existing work? There is none, irrespective of how much work went in to taking the photograph (and talk about the "sweat of one's brow" means sweat brought on by the creative process, not the technical work in setting up the lighting, camera and other equipment necessary to take a faithfully reproductive photograph of a painting, which doesn't involve any actual creativity (ie. nothing artistic is created thereby) whatsoever. Since copyright requires originality of creation, there cannot be any copyright inherent in a photograph of a piece of art on which the underlying copyright has long since expired. The museums know this - that's why they ban cameras and yet have a conveniently placed shop by the exit where you can pick up life size posters of your favourite works. Unfortunately for the NPG, by spending all that time and money in digitising faithful reproductions of those artworks they have, in effect, taken down all their "no camera" signs. Yes, they may have made things difficult through imposing technical restrictions, but since the restriction on circumventing technical restrictions only exists to prevent infringement of copyrighted works, if there's no originality, there's no copyright, so there's no unlawful circumvention of technical measures. |
taiwopanfob |
![]()
Post
#11
|
Ãœber Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 643 Joined: Member No.: 214 ![]() |
Where's the originality in a photograph which merely reproduces an existing work? There is none, irrespective of how much work went in to taking the photograph (and talk about the "sweat of one's brow" means sweat brought on by the creative process, not the technical work in setting up the lighting, camera and other equipment necessary to take a faithfully reproductive photograph of a painting, which doesn't involve any actual creativity (ie. nothing artistic is created thereby) whatsoever. There are serious technical and creative issues at play when any photograph is taken. Good pictures are hard to get, and this is true regardless of what you or even the Supreme Court may believe. For example, try a flower. Say, a tulip. According to the stellar reasoning from your end, copyright on any photograph of a tulip can not exist, since the photographer did not "create" or "originate" the tulip. Even planting the thing isn't enough, since any idiot -- even a Wikipediot -- can dig a hole in the ground, drop in a bulb, and wait a few months. |
No one of consequence |
![]()
Post
#12
|
I want to stare at the seaside and do nothing at all ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 635 Joined: Member No.: 1,010 ![]() |
Where's the originality in a photograph which merely reproduces an existing work? There is none, irrespective of how much work went in to taking the photograph (and talk about the "sweat of one's brow" means sweat brought on by the creative process, not the technical work in setting up the lighting, camera and other equipment necessary to take a faithfully reproductive photograph of a painting, which doesn't involve any actual creativity (ie. nothing artistic is created thereby) whatsoever. There are serious technical and creative issues at play when any photograph is taken. Good pictures are hard to get, and this is true regardless of what you or even the Supreme Court may believe. For example, try a flower. Say, a tulip. According to the stellar reasoning from your end, copyright on any photograph of a tulip can not exist, since the photographer did not "create" or "originate" the tulip. Even planting the thing isn't enough, since any idiot -- even a Wikipediot -- can dig a hole in the ground, drop in a bulb, and wait a few months. No, please see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., which is the law of the land in the US. A photograph of a A case like Bridgeman has not yet been litigated in the UK. The NPG is taking on some risk if they pursue their claim in court. |
Peter Damian |
![]()
Post
#13
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 4,400 Joined: Member No.: 4,212 ![]() |
No, please see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., which is the law of the land in the US. QUOTE There is a common misconception that, as a result of the decision in Bridgeman v. Corel, copyright can never subsist in a photograph of a painting. That conclusion is erroneous because: 1. the judgment in Bridgeman v. Corel is a decision of the US Courts and therefore, whilst it might amount to a precedent under US law, it has no effect under UK law; and 2. in the UK, whilst the precise circumstances that gave rise to the Bridgeman v. Corel litigation have never been the subject matter of a claim decided before the UK Courts, practicing lawyers and legal academics alike generally agree that under a UK law analysis the judgment in Bridgeman v. Corel is wrong and that copyright can subsist in a photograph of a painting. For the avoidance of doubt, the allegation of copyright infringement made against you below is an allegation under UK law. Furthermore, we can confirm that every one of the images that you have copied is the product of a painstaking exercise on the part of the photographer that created the image in which significant time, skill, effort and artistry have been employed and that there can therefore be no doubt that under UK law all of those images are copyright works under s.1(1)(a) of the CDPA. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: |