Posts by FT2

Wikipedia's Gallery guy hung up to dry?

@AC

"By theft they've managed to get 3000 images..."

So I checked the theft laws in the UK, to see if this is so. It wasn't hard to find. "A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and ‘theft’ ... shall be construed accordingly".

"A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is _not_ to be regarded as

dishonest if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right [to do so]" - clearly DCoetzee honestly believed this, and still does believe it, as do a significant number of others.

Read the law before making allegations of crimes.

@wtf

The term "slavish copy" has been bandied round, but legally the word _doesn't_ speak to skill, effort and judgement. Under UK law it refers to whether the end product is either a novel work or a non-creative reproduction - and case law suggests strongly that whatever skill is involved, the intent of an archival photograph is to make as exact a copy as possible with as little imposition of original creative thought as possible and is thus not a novel work. Skill, effort, and use of specialist and expensive technology not available to a lay-person are commendable but, under UK case law, they don't appear to create a copyright, however much some might like them to.

David S 1 - Unless copyright exists, they have NO legal basis in copyright law to restrict another person in using or reusing it. Fairly authoritative UK cases suggest that copyright did not exist in the photos.

@AC

Actually points of law are decided on statute and case precedent, not wishful thinking. Wikipedia has an article on [[reading]] and [[reading comprehension]]. I can see you have mastered the art of stringing letters into words, and words into sentences, but you appear not to have mastered the 5th grade art of reading comprehension. Heres something to get you thinking:

"In the thread above, which legal cases from the UK have been cited?"

"What UK courts' authority did each of these cases have"

"Why did the person citing them think this might mean they could be important cases?"

"What might be wrong with the implication that this is all 'a lot of wishful thinking' ?"

"Why might it be it important to consider evidence in a discussion like this?"

You get a beginners dictionary and an x-box, if you achieve more than a C- in the test :)

@David Webb

You know the old saying that I might not agree with someone, but I will fight for their right to speak?

I might not care for it, or need high quality pictures of old art to be freely available for my website, projects, media presentations, etc, but I do support that it should be available. Who should pay?

Given that both US and UK spend extreme numbers of bilions on public expenses and unexpected novel causes when they feel the need (I think we can all name a number of these), if NPG needs $1.5m over 2 years for its nationally pivotal collection, the money would be well spent for that countries cultural future. It's something that would be a benefit in perpetuity. If this were a private museum with major artwork, and needed the money, then even so, the same applies - give them a grant for it on condition the results are freely available to the public. A $3m a year "digitization fund" would allow 2 such projects per year and how many such projects exist? 10 years worth? 20? Worth it? Yes. For countries that can suddenly discover they have access to a few trillion (thats 12 zeros) for the banking system or an unexpected war or two when it suits them, it's peanuts.

@Charles 9

Re common ground...

Ouch! Quite.

@Trygve

"So to summarise the legal position, you can easily and legally prevent someone making copies of works you own, but once a copy has been made you can't prevent it being ripped off by every Tom Dick & Harry for free. Want to take a guess at how many museum and gallery managers will be deciding to stick to hardcopy in future?

Well, these guys didn't: V&A, Smithsonian, Brooklyn Museum, ......... (V&A announcement: <http://www.vam.ac.uk/activ_events/past_events/special_events/wikipedia_loves_art>, full list: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Loves_Art>)

Recognize any of them? You should.

@David Webb

"There is also not perpetual copyright, the images that the NPG display have their own copyright shelf life, life of author +70 years, so eventually the images will become public domain and then anyone can host them without question of copyright."

... And around year 50 after the photographer dies (and every 50 -100 years thereafter), the astute revenue maximization employee withdraws them all in favor of new improved photos, right?

Original Old Masters can't be photographed by anyone else, current photos are copyright, past photos were withdrawn and locked away "for protection" 20 years before copyright expired so no other copies exist by the time they would have been copyright-free.....

This (in simple terms) is exactlyone of the reasons why the courts in both the UK and US haven't endorsed reproduction copyright.

@Jolyon Ralph, David Webb

Thats a nice idea, Jolyon, but the UK courts already considered minor modification and copyright, and the ruling in the UK indicates that what counts is creative and visual originality. That something technical has been added within the image, doesn't necessarily make that _image_ an "original work". It isn't about plain "slavish copies" either as David Webb suggests.

Here's that UK Privy Council case again, which speaks directly to this point. Speaks several times in fact, probably to make sure people get the idea :) :

"It may be and no doubt is the case that that information involves important functional concepts, and even a good deal of technical research, but [...] what this case is concerned with is not an idea or a concept but artistic copyright claimed in the drawings. [...] What is important about a drawing is what is visually significant and the re-drawing of an existing drawing [= reproduction of a 2D image] with a few minimal visual alterations does not make it an original artistic work, however much labour and skill may have gone into the process of reproduction [...]"

"I think it clear that it will not create copyright in a new edition of a work, of which the copyright has expired, merely to make a few emendations of the text, or to add a few unimportant notes. To create a copyright by alterations of the text, these must be extensive and substantial, practically making a new book. With regard to notes, in like manner, they must exhibit an addition to the work which is not superficial or colourable, but imparts to the book a true and real value, over and above that belonging to the text."

"Copyright is concerned not with any originality of ideas but with their form of expression, and it is in that expression that originality is requisite. That expression need not be original or novel in form, but it must originate with the author and not be copied from another work ... A drawing which is simply traced from another drawing is not an original artistic work [...]"

"[C]opying, per se, however much skill or labour may be devoted to the process, cannot make an original work. A well executed tracing is the result of much labour and skill but remains what it is, a tracing. Moreover, it must be borne in mind that the Copyright Act 1956; confers protection on an original work for a generous period. The prolongation of the period of statutory protection by periodic reproduction of the original work with minor alterations is an operation which requires to be scrutinized with some caution to ensure that that for which protection is claimed really is an original artistic work."

Anyone still arguing that in legal terms, a _UK_ equivalent of the Supreme Court haven't ruled on matters extremely closely related to this case? Anyone still inclined to claim that Bridgeman is a purely US case and UK law hasn't ever considered it? Did anyone actually _read_ "Bridgeman" and noticed that while not binding in the UK, it was nonetheless decided by applying _UK_ law?

@David Webb

"If the WMF is unable to respect British/European laws, then why should the British/European institutions give any assistance to the WMF in the future? Why should they spend a fortune on making works of art available online when a faceless US corporation rips them off "in the public good"

Because if a UK citizen wanted to have free reuse of their own national heritage, for their own purposes, they might feel that unending copyright through physical prevention of photographs is not what copyright law is about.

They would then cite the various _UK_ legal cases on it, and consider that Lord Oliver's comment at the Privy Council (_not_ some random US court): was that "Skill, labour or judgement merely in the process of copying cannot confer originality."

They'd consider that the House of Lords comment (_not_ some random US court) was "To accord an independent artistic copyright to every such reproduction would be to enable the period of artistic copyright in what is, essentially, the same work to be extended indefinitely", and that this was described as legally "undesirable".

_Then_ I guess they'd ask your opinion on it....

@SuperTim

"Now, back to my elephant picture,,,,,,"

Your _3 dimensional_ elephant's picture, I take it? :)

On moral rights.....

Rod - sorry, but you're looking at the wrong page there. That's for reproductions of material that's within copyright - album covers etc are usually under 50 years old for example. So you're taking a set of rules regarding using a photo of a copyrighted item, and trying to apply it to a photo of a non-copyrighted item.

The question might be turned on its head - if both reproductions of non-copyright material are legal, then why would an end-user not choose the higher resolution. Alternatively if the NPG was genuinely concerned for its digitizing project, why not allow a limited number of accredited users to take their own photos (tripod, no flash)? The only answer I can think of is that, copyright having expired long ago, the NPG wants to obtain a de facto monopoly anyhow.

Is that truly the most ethical stance possible? Or does physical ownership of a national collection of material that exists nowhere else, funded by taxpayers, charities, and bequests, convey that moral right?

Not well thought out

Coetzee's adminship was removed for a very good and valid reason. He would be in an impossible position and potentially facing a hostile litigand.

He is also charged as an administrator with not misusing the tools he has. That includes not using them in a matter where he has a significant personal interest ("conflict of interest"). Others would revert him for that alone if he tried, as well as for attempting to delete material off a US server that is seen as completely legal in the US.... and may well be legal in the UK too, see Interlego v Tyco Industries (Privy Council) and Coca-Cola Go (House of Lords).

If he didn't delete the images, he would be exposed to a charge of willful non-deletion by NPG. If he did then he would be reverted anyway (other US based users are not bound to agree with his decision and he doesn't have a way to stop them reinstating the images), and he breaches his implicit agreement with the community to use them only in a communally sanctioned way, in doing so.

Since he couldn't override others subsequent disagreement and reinstatement anyway, and he would probably have his admin privileges removed to prevent disruption by the time he'd deleted half a dozen of them, any attempt by Coetzee to use them would be pointless anyway.

In the circumstances removal is probably something he is extremely grateful for while the situation is legally active, as it takes out from any control he might have, a major complexity and possible "no win" situation. It's as far from being "hung out to dry" as possible.