QUOTE(Adambro @ Mon 13th July 2009, 7:57pm)
I'm inclined to disagree with the NPG on this though, regardless of how much work was involved in producing these images of these art works, they are still merely reproductions of public domain of art.
I'm inclined to agree with you for art owned by a government entity. Unfortunately it seems that English law does not agree with that sentiment, and there we are.
Let's try a thought experiment (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Suppose I, as a private collector, own a van Gogh. I, even as a US citizen, would expect that I could capitalize on my painting by making, say, posters available. But I ask you to pay a price (reasonable or unreasonable) and sign a contract saying you will not make a quality facsimile of the poster. You agree, send me the money and signed contract, and I send you the poster.
Days go by and I find out (from friends of course) that you are advertising the poster for sale in Hustler magazine. We go to court.
I show Judge Wapner the contract, and he would say we had a meeting of the minds, and you would have to pay up.
Loosen the constraints of the argument above and at what point am I (the NPG) wrong?