![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
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. |
Random832 |
![]()
Post
#7
|
meh ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 1,933 Joined: Member No.: 4,844 ![]() |
|
dogbiscuit |
![]()
Post
#8
|
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more? ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 2,972 Joined: From: The Midlands Member No.: 4,015 ![]() |
It takes time and money to produce quality reproductions of artworks. Requiring time and money should not be sufficient for copyright. I don't think you get it (though I think to be fair that Kato's partial quote does not capture the essence of the principle of skill as well). The point is, that it is not the image that is copyright, it is the particular rendition of the image, or images derived from that rendition that is copyright. The example given of Shakespeare's works makes the principle clear: you can put Shakespeare into print by copying the words out, or by photocopying an old out of copyright version. However, if someone does the Luxury All Original Reader's Digest Large Print Complete Works of Shakespeare, it is reasonable that someone should not be able to come along and make a direct facsimile of that new work - as there would then be no point in putting the effort in to creating such works. There have been several suggestions that somehow the production of a new work somehow makes the old works less available - it does not, it is purely the new work that is protected, and the UK law recognises that there can be worth in producing a new work of such value that it should be copyrighted. The other example, say the Boston Pops Orchestra produce a new version of Beethoven's 5th. Do they lose the ability to gain copyright in their recordings because the source score is out of copyright? As also has been pointed out, the WikiMedia licence granted is so wide in what it allows, that no sane person would ever allow an image of value to be subject to it. I would think that the NPG would be in breach of their mission if they allowed images in their care to be licensed for pornographic use - for example they have pictures of the Royal Family and it would be a national scandal if they were found to have licensed images that were then used in some abusive manner. |
Eva Destruction |
![]()
Post
#9
|
Fat Cat ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 1,735 Joined: Member No.: 3,301 ![]() |
As also has been pointed out, the WikiMedia licence granted is so wide in what it allows, that no sane person would ever allow an image of value to be subject to it. I would think that the NPG would be in breach of their mission if they allowed images in their care to be licensed for pornographic use - for example they have pictures of the Royal Family and it would be a national scandal if they were found to have licensed images that were then used in some abusive manner. That isn't relevant to this particular case, which is about whether the NPG's photographing the works creates a new work. Under UK law (s.62 of the Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988, if you want chapter and verse) any work on permanent public display is exempt from copyright – if someone were to somehow take their own camera into the gallery and get permission to photograph the works in the permanent collection, they would be in their rights to release their own photographs into the public domain, even were the works recently painted and still copyrighted. This post has been edited by Eva Destruction: |
One |
![]()
Post
#10
|
Postmaster General ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 2,553 Joined: Member No.: 4,284 ![]() |
As also has been pointed out, the WikiMedia licence granted is so wide in what it allows, that no sane person would ever allow an image of value to be subject to it. I would think that the NPG would be in breach of their mission if they allowed images in their care to be licensed for pornographic use - for example they have pictures of the Royal Family and it would be a national scandal if they were found to have licensed images that were then used in some abusive manner. That isn't relevant to this particular case, which is about whether the NPG's photographing the works creates a new work. Under UK law (s.62 of the Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988, if you want chapter and verse) any work on permanent public display is exempt from copyright – if someone were to somehow take their own camera into the gallery and get permission to photograph the works in the permanent collection, they would be in their rights to release their own photographs into the public domain, even were the works recently painted and still copyrighted. It actually says that "copyright in such a work is not infringed," and is silent about whether these derivative works are copyright themselves. Not clear what "artistic craftsmanship" means, but I think that this section refers to three-dimensional works; they don't want people to assert infringement for filming in buildings with distinctive features. This post has been edited by One: |
Eva Destruction |
![]()
Post
#11
|
Fat Cat ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 1,735 Joined: Member No.: 3,301 ![]() |
As also has been pointed out, the WikiMedia licence granted is so wide in what it allows, that no sane person would ever allow an image of value to be subject to it. I would think that the NPG would be in breach of their mission if they allowed images in their care to be licensed for pornographic use - for example they have pictures of the Royal Family and it would be a national scandal if they were found to have licensed images that were then used in some abusive manner. That isn't relevant to this particular case, which is about whether the NPG's photographing the works creates a new work. Under UK law (s.62 of the Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988, if you want chapter and verse) any work on permanent public display is exempt from copyright – if someone were to somehow take their own camera into the gallery and get permission to photograph the works in the permanent collection, they would be in their rights to release their own photographs into the public domain, even were the works recently painted and still copyrighted. What a bizarre reading. It actually says that "copyright in such a work is not infringed," and is silent about whether these derivative works are copyright themselves. There's copyright in the original, however, but that certain enumerated uses are not infringing. Well, the Official Jimbo Approved Interpretation of CDPA88 §62 is "Section 62 of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 […] allows photographers to take pictures of buildings, and sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship (if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public) without breaching copyright. Such photographs may be published in any way. […] The practical effect of the broad Freedom of Panorama provisions in the UK and in other countries with similar laws is that it is acceptable to upload to Commons not only photographs of public buildings and sculptures but also works of artistic craftsmanship which are on permanent public display in museums, galleries and exhibitions which are open to the public." (my emphasis). Which AFAIK is what I said. This post has been edited by Eva Destruction: |
taiwopanfob |
![]()
Post
#12
|
Ãœber Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 643 Joined: Member No.: 214 ![]() |
Well, the Official Jimbo Approved Interpretation of CDPA88 §62 is "Section 62 of the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 […] allows photographers to take pictures of buildings, and sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship (if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public) without breaching copyright. Such photographs may be published in any way. […] The practical effect of the broad Freedom of Panorama provisions in the UK and in other countries with similar laws is that it is acceptable to upload to Commons not only photographs of public buildings and sculptures but also works of artistic craftsmanship which are on permanent public display in museums, galleries and exhibitions which are open to the public." (my emphasis). Which AFAIK is what I said. But Jimbo's reading is apparently incomplete. If Alice takes a picture of the Mona Lisa, s.62 seems to say her copy does not infringe. Which perhaps means she can upload it. But this does not imply that Bob can find the photograph on Alice's website and upload it, even assuming Alice could, since the section is silent on the copyright status of Alice's image. Edit: in light of One's edit (above), we can change "Mona Lisa" to whatever applies under the section. This post has been edited by taiwopanfob: |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: |