![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
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: |
TungstenCarbide |
![]()
Post
#10
|
Allegedly shot down by stray Ukrainian missile ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 1,405 Joined: Member No.: 10,787 ![]() |
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," Yes, there is a creativity requirement for copyrights. Nobody owns a copyright on a well machined bearing race; not the machinist nor the company that employs him, regardless of the skill or expensive equipment required. It's not a creative work. The national gallery is trying to say the photographer's skill merits copyright, and they are using that technicality to hijack the value of the original paintings. |
GlassBeadGame |
![]()
Post
#11
|
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 ![]() |
Yes, there is a creativity requirement for copyrights. Nobody owns a copyright on a well machined bearing race; not the machinist nor the company that employs him, regardless of the skill or expensive equipment required. It's not a creative work. The national gallery is trying to say the photographer's skill merits copyright, and they are using that technicality to hijack the value of the original paintings. How many times are you going to spout the same cliche over and over again? The potential plaintiff believes this argument is hollow and fully intents to bring action in a jurisdiction that isn't bound by the authority that accepts that argument. That photographs using great skill to accurately depict other works of art are selected and grouped by professionals highly skilled and trained in the selection and categorization of artistic works into a database should be consider an original act of creation deserving of copyright protection is hardly a specious argument. WMF and the pseudonym who intruded into the NPG's website to appropriate these works and the free culture fanatics who cheer them on can disparage these claims all they want but in the end they don't get to decide. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: |