![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
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. |
GlassBeadGame |
![]()
Post
#3
|
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 ![]() |
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. The National Portrait Gallery is a substantial institution with strong equities and much motivation to press this issue. The correspondence seems to me well reasoned, thought out and very detailed. In itself, and taking into account the underlying work and investigation it represents, it already amounts to substantial commitment of legal resources. It is the kind of letter that indicates that the aggrieved party has his ducks in row and could work up pleading in short order. Next comes a round of discovery to WMF and ISP etc needed to name and serve the pseudonym (presumably WMF would also be named.) This does not seem to me to be an idle threat. It might be worth the fight to WMF, represented by EFF or the like, and is certainly worth while for NPG. I doubt that the pseudonym will feel so glad about the experience by the time it's over. |
No one of consequence |
![]()
Post
#4
|
I want to stare at the seaside and do nothing at all ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 635 Joined: Member No.: 1,010 ![]() |
The National Portrait Gallery is a substantial institution with strong equities and much motivation to press this issue. The correspondence seems to me well reasoned, thought out and very detailed. In itself, and taking into account the underlying work and investigation it represents, it already amounts to substantial commitment of legal resources. It is the kind of letter that indicates that the aggrieved party has his ducks in row and could work up pleading in short order. Next comes a round of discovery to WMF and ISP etc needed to name and serve the pseudonym (presumably WMF would also be named.) This does not seem to me to be an idle threat. It might be worth the fight to WMF, represented by EFF or the like, and is certainly worth while for NPG. I doubt that the pseudonym will feel so glad about the experience by the time it's over. But the WMF is in the US. Is there such a thing as international civil courts? (I don't think so.) Unless the threatened editor lives in the UK, both he and the WMF would seem to be beyond the NPG's reach. 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 That's what Bridgeman is about in the US. The circumstances of Bridgeman have never been litigated in the UK. It is interesting that the letter cites the supposed creative input and skill by the photographer (to exactly reproduce a work of art?) as a way to pre-empt a Bridgeman-like article. It would be lovely if this were litigated in the UK and for the NPG to lose just like Bridgeman did. Copyright protects artistic expression for a limited period of time in order to encourage and monetize such expressions. Copyright was never meant to be permanent. Legally, the gallery might be right, at least in the U.K. (though not in the U.S., where the servers and apparently the individual Wikipedian are). Morally, however, I have to side with the "free culture" crowd and oppose efforts by institutions to gain proprietary rights over things whose copyrights are nonexistent or long expired, simply based on their possession of the physical objects and their limiting the ability of outsiders to make photographs or copies of them. Hear, hear! 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," But is a photographic reproduction of a painting "original"? This is the basis for Bridgeman v Corel in the US, and the museum lost. There is no question that in the US, such photographs, no matter how skillfully taken, are not protected. A similar case has not been litigated in the UK, as the letter points out, so the museum is in fact taking some risk here as well. |
Kato |
![]()
Post
#5
|
dhd ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 5,521 Joined: Member No.: 767 ![]() |
But the WMF is in the US. Is there such a thing as international civil courts? (I don't think so.) Unless the threatened editor lives in the UK, both he and the WMF would seem to be beyond the NPG's reach. It would be lovely if this were litigated in the UK and for the NPG to lose just like Bridgeman did. This is one of my biggest gripes with Wikipedia. What you are advocating is cultural bullying of a publicly owned institution in another country, and then you rush behind the skirts of Uncle Sam when they try to fight back. We've said this many times before, but make no mistake, at the core of Wikipedia lies a radical and essentially right wing agenda to undermine public ownership, which ultimately places knowledge and culture in the hands of private interests. In this case, it isn't even your public ownership. Hands Off. |
No one of consequence |
![]()
Post
#6
|
I want to stare at the seaside and do nothing at all ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 635 Joined: Member No.: 1,010 ![]() |
But the WMF is in the US. Is there such a thing as international civil courts? (I don't think so.) Unless the threatened editor lives in the UK, both he and the WMF would seem to be beyond the NPG's reach. This is one of my biggest gripes with Wikipedia. What you are advocating is cultural bullying of a publicly owned institution in another country, and then you rush behind the skirts of Uncle Sam when they try to fight back. We've said this many times before, but make no mistake, at the core of Wikipedia lies a radical and essentially right wing agenda to undermine public ownership which ultimately ends up placing knowledge and culture in the hands of private interests. Why is this not a case instead of a publicly owned institution trying to bully a private citizen to protect an illegitimately-claimed financial interest in a piece of public property? Here you have the NPG, supported by UK taxpayers, trying to make money selling reproductions of property that they do not own intellectual property rights to, by virtue of their possession of the original. Isn't The Death of Lord Nelson a British National Treasure? But it should only be available to people who can afford to buy prints? |
taiwopanfob |
![]()
Post
#7
|
Ãœber Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 643 Joined: Member No.: 214 ![]() |
But it should only be available to people who can afford to buy prints? Maybe I should present myself to Disney World, and demand free entrance. How can they possibly sleep at night, knowing they are denying the pinnacle of western culture to millions of children and adults? On the basis of pure economic discrimination? I'm also getting a bit pissed off at the local swimming pool. All those signs about having to shower before entry, restrictions on what I can wear in the pool, what I can do in or around the water. Who the hell do these people think they are? Basically, Kato is dead right here. Proprietary interests are why things are as good as they are around here, and the Free Kulture people are not thinking on a long enough timeline. |
No one of consequence |
![]()
Post
#8
|
I want to stare at the seaside and do nothing at all ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 635 Joined: Member No.: 1,010 ![]() |
But it should only be available to people who can afford to buy prints? Maybe I should present myself to Disney World, and demand free entrance. How can they possibly sleep at night, knowing they are denying the pinnacle of western culture to millions of children and adults? On the basis of pure economic discrimination? I'm also getting a bit pissed off at the local swimming pool. All those signs about having to shower before entry, restrictions on what I can wear in the pool, what I can do in or around the water. Who the hell do these people think they are? Basically, Kato is dead right here. Proprietary interests are why things are as good as they are around here, and the Free Kulture people are not thinking on a long enough timeline. I'm going to ignore your irrelevant strawman arguments, and instead ask two questions. 1. Should proprietary interests be indefinite, and if so, what distinguishes artistic innovation from technical innovation? Why is it acceptable for the NPG to claim exclusive use to reproduce portraits that are in the public domain, when pharmaceutical companies only get 21 (or 25) years to exclusively market a drug? 2. Can any owner of the original work of art claim a new copyright by making a careful enough reproduction? How about the original motion pictures made by Edison and the Lumière brothers? Here is a wax cylinder recording of a song by Arthur Sullivan, made in 1888. Can the owner of the original cylinder claim a new copyright over the song or the recording, by making a careful reproduction? |
taiwopanfob |
![]()
Post
#9
|
Ãœber Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 643 Joined: Member No.: 214 ![]() |
But it should only be available to people who can afford to buy prints? Maybe I should present myself to Disney World, and demand free entrance. How can they possibly sleep at night, knowing they are denying the pinnacle of western culture to millions of children and adults? On the basis of pure economic discrimination? I'm also getting a bit pissed off at the local swimming pool. All those signs about having to shower before entry, restrictions on what I can wear in the pool, what I can do in or around the water. Who the hell do these people think they are? Basically, Kato is dead right here. Proprietary interests are why things are as good as they are around here, and the Free Kulture people are not thinking on a long enough timeline. I'm going to ignore your irrelevant strawman arguments, and instead ask two questions. You effectively ask why people should pay to see stuff in a museum, etc. I take the position to its conclusion and you now claim "strawman". Who is tossing the hay around here, anyways? QUOTE 1. Should proprietary interests be indefinite, and if so, what distinguishes artistic innovation from technical innovation? Why is it acceptable for the NPG to claim exclusive use to reproduce portraits that are in the public domain, when pharmaceutical companies only get 21 (or 25) years to exclusively market a drug? Because the NPG owns the physical artefact? Because the NPG wants to maintain the artefact in a pristine condition? That if the NPG is forced to sell the artefact -- say, because it is too expensive to maintain -- it will fall into private hands, and thus be denied to everyone, but for whatever images were made prior to it? Especially so, since it would not be in anyone's further interest to photograph it, given the copyright regime you are demanding? The basic problem you are ignoring is that copyright is what will ultimately prop up Free Kulture. CC, GFDL, etc, are all meaningless in an environment where copyright is at the whim of the mob of Wikipediots, or even a bunch of retards sitting around a table, in a room, in a building labelled "Supreme Court". QUOTE 2. Can any owner of the original work of art claim a new copyright by making a careful enough reproduction? How about the original motion pictures made by Edison and the Lumière brothers? Here is a wax cylinder recording of a song by Arthur Sullivan, made in 1888. Can the owner of the original cylinder claim a new copyright over the song or the recording, by making a careful reproduction? Are you asking a legal question or a moral/ethical one? Getting back to the point: Are you going to try and create a copy of a work of art for us, and explain all of the "slavish" details and other un-original aspects? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: |