Slashdot Mirror
UK's National Portrait Gallery Threatens To Sue Wikipedia User
jpatokal writes "The National Portrait Gallery of London is threatening litigation against a Wikipedia user over his uploading of pictures of some 3,000 paintings, all 19th century or earlier and firmly in the public domain. Their claim? The photos are a 'product of a painstaking exercise on the part of the photographer,' and that downloading them off the NPG site is an 'unlawful circumvention of technical measures.' And remember, the NPG's taxpayer-funded mission is to 'promote the appreciation and understanding of portraiture in all media [...] to as wide a range of visitors as possible!'"
Wikipedia will cave and take them down, and they'll end up on Wikileaks...
The paintings may be in the public domain, but the photographs are copyright to the photographer.
So good luck to the dipshit user who uploaded them.
Really, who took them? The site is Slashdotted, so we don't know. If a visitor to the gallery took the photographs and uploaded them, then it sounds fair enough. If a photographer working for the gallery itself took them, then it seems reasonable to say that they're the gallery's. Actually, the site has just loaded and it seems that the user downloaded the photographs from the NPG's own website. So TFS is misleading again. Is it me or is the sole aim of Slashdot editors to provoke flame wars to increase traffic and ad-revenue on their site?
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Unfortunately there is such a thing as a copyright on collections of data. Since the collection of photographs was created by the photographer, it may be covered by copyright, even though the original pictures are in the public domain and each single photograph would count as a mere reproduction, not an individual work of art.
They'll soon give in. How are they going to write those cards underneath the paintings without wikipedia?
*17 minutes* to copy a file on your Mac, you say?
Unfortunately photos are always copyrighted, even if they are just an attempt at reproducing something not currently covered. You can always copy the text of something out of copyright, photo reproduction should be no different. If the photos are taken in a way to represent more than just the original image, then they should be considered original work. But when they are an attempt to represent just the original image, they should not be copyrightable. It is after all, the original image that was the creative work.
So any guy who can right click on an image in Firefox and then choose 'Save As' is now considered a photographer by Slashdot? I guess the standards are lower here.
I can't entirely see that they are wrong. Yes, the paintings themselves are in the public domain, but that does not mean that the photographs (a derivative work) are automatically in the public domain. It's no different than if I rewrote a work of fiction that's in the public domain, my work is still covered by copyright.
http://www.npg.org.uk/business/images/use-on-web.php
----
Using our images on websites
Do the right thing!
You need permission to use our images on your website.
Here's how to apply (it's easy):
1. Tell us which images you would like to use (e.g. NPG 1, William Shakespeare).
2. Tell us how you would like to feature the image, and how long for.
3. Tell is whether your website is personal, academic, commercial or corporate.
4. Provide us with the URL and your postal address.
5. Let us know who is sponsoring the site (i.e. who pays the bills!).
Why not send your application now, by e-mail to rightsandimages@npg.org.uk.
* We will then reply, to let you know if permission is available.
* We will also let you know how much it is going to cost.
* If you confirm you order in writing and provide full payment, we will fulfil your order as quickly as possible and supply the images with a licence to use them in your project.
* The specific terms of the licence are set out in the invoice (you'll need to get further permission if you want to use the images in any other way) while the general terms are spelt out carefully in our terms & conditions.
For a guide to our rates, or if you would like more details before applying, download our standard pdf website information pack comprising
* an introduction
* an application form
* a table of current rates
* our full terms & conditions
----
Maybe I'll get sued for copying their FAQ text now...
Huh. Well, the Foundation has apparently taken the stand that this is okay by them. This was done by a straw poll , no less. (Why not just put up a poll asking if users should be able to upload random pictures on the internet that don't have a clear copyright assignment on them? What a fucking joke.)
These sorts of claims probably aren't valid in the United States, which is why museums here don't usually prohibit photography--people can just scan their books or postcards. On the other hand, museums in the UK do prohibit photography, because this allows them to retain copyright over the images. The postcards and books that they sell are still owned by them, and prohibiting photography means that they're the only source for those images.
It's vital to their funding model, and they're just protecting their interests. Suddenly cutting off a major stream of revenue would be catastrophic. On the other hand, museums in the States manage to get by with different revenue models. It's not like it's impossible for them to continue existing, but I can understand why they'd fight to protect their model.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Under UK law, slavish reproductions of two-dimensional art are copyrightable in and of themselves, even if the original art isn't copyrighted. If the museum created these photos, they can claim copyright on them. Such a claim wouldn't stand up in the United States, but it probably would there.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I've read the complaint. (OK, I admit it, I'm a Slashdot user who Reads The Fine Article.) They've being completely reasonable: they explain the law, they ask for (almost entirely) reasonable steps to avoid the lawsuit, and they offer to cooperate in providing _low resolution_ images for the use of Wikimedia.
If I ever get sued, I want to be sued by these people. They're working with the law and with their client's needs, and not violating the public's needs for information.
I have a modified IR camera I use that I built to photograph artwork- it's amazing what you can sometimes see 'underneath' the paints the artist chose.
In one gallery in Germany I saw a work of art in IR that had been severely damaged and retouched- it was clearly evident in the IR photograph but not in the VIS photograph. I showed them to the curator (I spoke no German and he spoke no English) and tried to ask what had happened to it in its history (as there was no statement of that on the work).
I swear the man was going to shit a brick. He had a look of pure panic on his face when he saw the IR photograph- I think he immediately ran up there to check on it. I don't think he understood what he was seeing (not surprising) so my wife and I left ASAP.
Now to me, IR would bring value- so would UV photographs of the artwork. I know there are places that can do this much more professionally ... but hey, a hobby is a hobby.
The museum is out of line. In a 'real world' they'd lose. They'll probably respond by banning photography and forcing anyone that does want to do shots to sign a waiver.
He could have just asked for permission to use the pictures. The NPG is not some corporate hawk, it's publicly funded, having an ethos of education and self improvement for all, in the Victorian tradition. The person who obtained the images chose to ignore this and harvest thousands of high resolution images (why does Wikipedia need high-res to display 96dpi???), circumventing copy protection in the process. The sale of these images, at extremely reasonable and non-commercial rates, is one of the sources of funding for the NPG.
Dcoetzee has brought into conflict two organisations which should normally benefit from each other, damaged the reputation of Wikipedia and all around acted like an idiot.
For several years, the National Portrait Gallery has claimed copyright over public domain images in their possession. Wikimedia has ignored these claims, occasionally laughing. (Bridgeman v. Corel. Sweat of the brow is not creation in US law; go away.) Our official stance in this time has been "sue and be damned."
So the National Portrait Gallery has tried. Here's their letter. A lollipop for every misconception or unlikely or impossible demand. This was sent after (so they claim) the WMF ignored their latest missive. The editor they sent the threat to is ... an American.
A UK organisation is threatening an American with legal action over uploading images that are public domain in the US to an American server — unambiguously, in established US law, not a copyright violation of any sort. I wonder how the case will go.
The letter is particularly odious in that it admits that his actions were completely within US law, but threatens to make his life a misery just because they think they can unless he (an individual) can actually make the WMF do something the NPG wants. This is actually worse than the RIAA.
It's most unfortunate that the National Portrait Gallery considers this in any way sensible behaviour, considering how well we've been going with museum partnerships for Wikipedia Loves Art — the V&A were fantastically helpful and lovely people, who realise that spreading their name and exhibits far and wide is much more likely to get them money and fame than claims of copyright over works hundreds of years old.
I can't see this ending well for the National Portrait Gallery, whatever happens. Anyone who could speak on their behalf at this level won't be in until Monday; I wonder if they'll be surprised at the people politely queueing with pitchforks and torches.
I'll be calling them first thing Monday (in my capacity as "just a blogger on Wikimedia-related topics") to establish just what they think they're doing here. Other bloggers and, if interested, journalists may wish to do the same, to establish what their consistent response is.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
No, the images are unambiguously public domain in the US, no matter how much sweat of the brow went into them. Bridgeman v Corel. What the NPG is doing is basically copyfraud.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Did they edit the blurb? It now reads, " and that downloading them off the NPG site is an 'unlawful circumvention of technical measures.'" That seems pretty clear to me. (But maybe that's because when I was in the NPG 4 years ago, I'm pretty sure that they didn't allow photography. I certain didn't take any pictures, I would have I'm sure.)
The NPG's UK taxpayer-funded mission.
So they're working under UK law. It kinda sucks that our copyright laws and, in some ways, less friendly than the US. Even stuff the government itself produces is not public domain over here. But that's the law here, that's how it works.
Making a high resolution reproduction of a work of art requires special equipment and skills, so I really think it's fair enough if that's copyright - somebody has invested money, skills and effort in making the reproduction be as good as possible. The situation is different in the US but the NPG ain't in the US. If the UK taxpayer funded it and UK law says that it's copyrightable, you can understand the NPG feeling the need to protect the UK taxpayer's investment by maintaining control of the images.
Given they control their own reproductions of the pictures, would it be acceptable for them to deny visitors the right to take their own photographs? I think not. But that's a separate debate because this guy didn't go there and invest the time to make photographs that he would then have had copyright on under UK law, he downloaded them from the National Gallery's website. I agree with the many posters before me that whilst it somewhat sucks that these creative works aren't available digitally in the public domain, the NPG are really being pretty reasonable about this - they've offered to work out terms for lower resolution imagery to be made available to Wikipedia, which is a lot more constructive than you'd expect from a corporate entity. It really looks like they're trying to defend their legal position sensibly whilst still facilitating the transfer of information - good for them.
But, please, Wikipedia users and everyone else - feel free to increase pressure on our government and institutions (and those in other countries) to have a strong public domain and sensible, fair copyright laws. We still have further to go, it's just a question of how we choose to represent ourselves.
1. In the UK, it would be a crime.
2. In the USA it is not a crime.
3. The act was done in the USA.
QED no crime was committed. The problem is that by inference we need a single global law for all electronically copyable information. That includes all photos, art, music, movies, books, etc.
The thing that makes the problem difficult is A. There is no global organization with anything close to the authority or trust to create such a global law and B. There are SIGNIFICANT philosophical differences about the kinds of laws we need. Whether it is is Freedom of the Press issue, a slander issue, or even business model issues (I personally think a 10 year renewable with sequel, copyright system would work best) there is HUGE disagreement still on what is fair and workable.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
"claims of copyright over works hundreds of years old"
No, certainly not. Instead, claims of copyright over "original photographs taken within the last thirty years".
And the letter is clear. Add fear if you like, but let's skip the uncertainty and doubt: there's no need to call anyone first thing Monday to "establish just what they think they're doing"; whether or not you or I agree with it, what they're doing is clearly explained here.
If I grabbed a screenshot of a picture of a painting, who would own it by UK law?
I got one of these letters in 2004:
I'm in the U.S., and the server is in the U.S. IIRC, I sent them back an email with a link to this article on Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., explaining that their copyright wasn't legally valid in the U.S. Never heard from them again.
The letter quoted in TFA does sound a lot more aggressive than what I received. Possibly they're more interested in pursuing this case since the number of images is large, and WP has a high public profile. It would be interesting to hear from someone with some legal expertise on whether there would be any practical effect on WP or Dcoetzee if they just ignored the threat and allowed a default judgment to be entered against Dcoetzee in the UK. If Dcoetzee or Jimmy Wales take a vacation in Scotland, do jackbooted thugs meet them at the airport terminal and take them away to Euro-Copyright Prison, where they'll have to spend a 20-year sentence wearing black turtlenecks and listening to French pop music?
Find free books.
In the US, this is completely legal. That's been settled law since Bridgeman vs. Corel (Corel issued a CD of photos of public domain paintings) and Feist vs. Rural Telephone (phone books not copyrightable; no creativity.). In fact, in Feist, the Supreme Court held that it's a constitutional issue; Congress's right to make copyright law is limited to creative works. Nor does the US have "database copyright", despite lobbying attempts for it. There's also Meshwerks vs. Toyota, which reinforces Bridgeman at the appellate level.
UK law in this area is still iffy. Which is going to be a problem here.
Everything happened within the US:
It would be nearly impossible for the NPG to drag the user to the UK to charge him under UK copyright law and the Wikipedia Foundation hasn't broken any laws at all.
This letter was an empty threat, unless the user wants to travel within the UK.
The works are fully attributed, although they don't need to be since they are public domain.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sir_Edward_Belcher_by_Stephen_Pearce.jpg
Corel v. Bridgeman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corel_v._Bridgeman, that's what I was trying to remember. Thank you.
Exactly who is the law protecting? The PUBLIC organization who stores and displays the art on BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC, does not allow photography, ostensibly to protect the artwork and preserve the environment. Fine, it is hard to appreciate art when you have to climb over photography equipment or endure constant flashes.
But the art itself is in the public domain, the pictures were commissioned and distributed via the web to the public by the PUBLIC foundation.
They did not create the art. They are not paying the artist.
The photographer did not create the art and is not paying the artist or the owner (the public).
The only value added is created through the PUBLIC foundation's policy not to allow the current owners (THE PUBLIC) to photograph the art (which they own) themselves, ostensibly in the greater public interest.
Another incredibly SAD abuse of copyright law, which was intended to protect the actual CREATORS and INVENTORS. Copyright law was NEVER intended to protect the revenue streams of public institutions or other 2nd and 3rd party leeches. STOP THE MADNESS.
Current copyright law causes FAR more damage than good.
I suspect the anti-circumvention part will be thrown out regardless. The Zoomify FAQ states: "It is important to note, however, that no image presented on the web can be completely protected - if you can see an image, the data is on your computer and it can be retrieved by someone sufficiently determined. For this reason, we provide Zoomify as a viewing solution and not an image security system."
I don't know if this is viable in London as I don't live there. But if it's remotely an option, then there are times when jury nullification is called for.
The juror is a middle-aged small-C Conservative who takes his civic obligations seriously and has come to do a job.
He is in many ways the mirror image of the judge.
He is not your comrade-in-arms.
The geek never quite grasps what the black American through most of our history learned from birth:
Jury Nullification cuts both ways.
It can send an innocent man to the gallows. It can free the KKK to kill again.
Capturing the color, detail and texture of a great painting is a difficult problem in both aesthetics and technology.
It is not point-and-click photography.
If you want to use these images the ethical thing to do is to ask for permission and credit them properly.
It is not unethical to ask for payment in return.
IT UK LAW, SO THERE!
the culprit should be forceably extridited to UK authorities and face up to 60 years (harsh) prison.
Gary
xxx
You mean the taxpayers?
What, no one thinks of the children in this case?
How did those images get to the US ?
He broke the rules to obtain the images. What he does after that is largely irrelevant. Who cares if he and the Wiki servers are in the US. The server he took the images from was a UK server, run by a UK concern, governed by UK law. You can't duck back over the fence and say nah nah na na nah ! I'm sure the Russians don't give a damn about US copyrights, but the US is sure trying to make them care.
the EU doesn't officially recognise software patents. So it would be ok for us to just copy and resell Windows and stick 2 fingers up at Microsoft would it ? I've a feeling you would find a reason to defend microsofts rights somehow.
... to this problem is for the original user to ask the Wikimedia folks to remove the images and for some U.S. based person to download them from the site and then upload to Wikimedia.
Having said that, I apologise for the fact that our entire government is run by an unelected chinless aristocracy, similar to the old Soviet nomenklatura, who still think of us as "subjects" not citizens. What you are seeing here is their attitude - we run the country, national assets belong to us not you.
None if this is remotely true.
The UK is not "run by an unelected chinless aristocracy". All Members of Parliament (MPs) are elected and there are very, very, very few MPs who are members of the hereditary aristocracy. In addition, the majority of members in the Lords are not hereditary peers.
The key points here are that MPs are elected and this is nothing like the old Soviet-era poliburo.
So, in summary, stop being a dick.
You don't have to respond to proceedings in any random country where they are brought against you. If you did, there'd be all sorts of cases of things like scammers suing people in Nigerian court.
If you don't live in a country, and aren't going to visit a country, then you have no need to pay attention to a lawsuit in that country.
Did USA tax payers fund the taking of the photographs? - No.
:-)
Do USA tax payers fund the National Portrait Gallery? - No.
Does the USA own the pictures in the National Portrait Gallery? - Unknown, but probably not.
If copying the photographs would be legal in the States, THEN COPY YOUR OWN FINE ART. I would be quite happy for the NPG to remove all their images and basically have people go in person to the gallery to view them. That would stop you American freeloaders
Oh and while I'm here - stop downloading all that BBC content that you feel you are entitled to, because it's "public service broadcasting". When was the last time you paid for a TV license? Just because your own TV is rubbish, that's no justification for stealing ours.
I've helped pay for it. You haven't.
if the photographer's goal was to create as close to facsimile as possible, then it's not a creative art work or derivative work.
It's documentation. It's an authorized copy of the original. Since the original is in the public domain, there is no copyright. Unless under UK law, it's legal for someone to claim ownership of a work they didn't create.
If the original work is public domain, the copy is public domain. If they claim otherwise, try to register copyrights on public domain works in the UK. When you're told you can't copyright something in the public domain, cite this instance.
They're using their grammar skills there.
so the paintings are in the public domain, the NPG are privileged to hang them, they pay some dipshit with at least one finger and one eye and a camera to photograph them, who was paid out of public money to do so and now they want to charge the public, who own the paintings, to use the photos that the public paid for because they won't allow the public to take their own...am I missing something here?
So. The US is happy to go after nay country that has a different version of copyright law to that of the US, such as Canada, even putting them on a watchlist. They want everybody to respect US law, without being willing to do the same for other countries? Honestly, as stupid as the law is, it should be respected until it is lobbied to be changed. Besides, wiki is an international foundation, sureley something can be done to the local UK branch? I actually hope the UK would grow some balls, and extradite the user to the UK for trial....
Oh that's right, they can't :|
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
they are not infringing on any rights for the original pictures.
They are not copyrighted to the photographer, so no infringement there. They are not copyright the gallery, so no problem there.
So no problem.
So why the suing..?
For the same reason that customs/TSA say that they are OK constitutionally with their search and seizures because they are not on US soil, they are on international soil.
So these UK citizens were not on US soil and were not going to the US.
Yet they were taken from international ground and incarcerated when taken forcibly on to US soil.
If you thought your legal system is bad, incomprehensible and overburdened - just remind yourself that your's is not anything like the UK's legal system!
Unless you live in UK. And I am sorry for you.
Huh? Did England secede?
Making a high resolution reproduction of a work of art requires special equipment and skills, so I really think it's fair enough if that's copyright - somebody has invested money, skills and effort in making the reproduction be as good as possible.
It takes a lot of special equipment and skills to take apart a 1957 Chevy completely, and then put it back together. Somebody has invested money, skills, and effort into putting it back together as completely as possible. Is the resulting work copyrightable? Of course not. Copyright law rewards creative works, not "hard work" or investment of time and labor.
The paintings may be in the public domain, but the photographs are copyright to the photographer.
Well, the NPG doesn't seem to think it's necessary to credit the individual photographer on THEIR site.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I was just talking to a friend about the Codex Sinaiticus which was recently scanned and put online here.
Wikimedia Commons does not have high-res scans of it, but the Codex Sinaiticus website has some really high-res images. Unfortunately they're only accessible though a Flash interface, but I'm sure that with a little scripting one could easily suck-out the raw image data. Reproduction of those images on other websites, however, may be illegal according to the Codex Sinaiticus website:
Copyright
This electronic version of Codex Sinaiticus is provided only for non-commercial personal and educational use, by the British Library, Leipzig University Library, St Catherine's Monaster at Sinai and the National Library of Russia.
The original item itself is in the public domain in most jurisdictions and therefore not protected by copyright under applicable laws. However rights in the electronic copy and certain associated metadata are owned by the holding institutions. If you wish to make use of this electronic copy or its metadata other than for non-commercial personal or educational use, you must first obtain the written permission of the relevant institution.
Those rules may make sense according to UK copyright law, but as others have pointed out in this thread, mere reproductions of 2D images are not inherently eligible for copyright protection as they are not novel. My friend warned me about trying to copy this data from the Codex site as it might open me up for legal liability in the UK, especially if I ever were to travel there again.
But now I don't have to bother: Someone else is already testing the waters! I eagerly await the results of this case.
coding is life
From:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/open-letter-to-grantmakers-and-donors-on-copyright-policy.html
"""
Executive summary: Foundations, other grantmaking agencies handling public tax-exempt dollars, and charitable donors need to consider the implications for their grantmaking or donation policies if they use a now obsolete charitable model of subsidizing proprietary publishing and proprietary research. In order to improve the effectiveness and collaborativeness of the non-profit sector overall, it is suggested these grantmaking organizations and donors move to requiring grantees to make any resulting copyrighted digital materials freely available on the internet, including free licenses granting the right for others to make and redistribute new derivative works without further permission. It is also suggested patents resulting from charitably subsidized research research also be made freely available for general use. The alternative of allowing charitable dollars to result in proprietary copyrights and proprietary patents is corrupting the non-profit sector as it results in a conflict of interest between a non-profit's primary mission of helping humanity through freely sharing knowledge (made possible at little cost by the internet) and a desire to maximize short term revenues through charging licensing fees for access to patents and copyrights. In essence, with the change of publishing and communication economics made possible by the wide spread use of the internet, tax-exempt non-profits have become, perhaps unwittingly, caught up in a new form of "self-dealing", and it is up to donors and grantmakers (and eventually lawmakers) to prevent this by requiring free licensing of results as a condition of their grants and donations.
"""
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
People may chuckle and think that taking photos of paintings is easy, it's not.
Watercolour paintings are fairly easy to photograph, because they are rather flat and usually not shiny. Even if the painter have used 20 layers, they are very thin layers. But if the painter have used some screwy pigment then there is trouble. Some pigments reflex visible light that won't be catched on film. Some pigments reflex light that the human eye won't see but the film will. Digital cameras is even worse in this department. Pigments alone may lead to a lot of experimenting with different light sources and filters. There are also a lot of pigments that show different colours being seen at different angles of the brushstroke, something a lot of painters have made use of. How do you catch those with a camera, were you have to take the photo up front? Then there is fluorescent pigments, like iron and phtalo blues, they glow at twilight (when they emit "extra" light) but are rather bleak under bright lights (when they absorb some light), unfortunetly it's rather hard to catch other aspects of the paintings in twilight.
Then there is oil, tempera and acrylic. The pigments are ususally a bit less problematic, because the varnish and binders remove some of the problematic lights. But the varnish and binders can also be used to create optical effects, most of these are hard or impossible to catch on film. People think of paintings as flat, but they are not. Most artist make heavy use of optical effects that require depth in the paint layer. A paint and varnish layer may just be millimeters thick (less then a millimeter in tempera, but still thicker then watercolour), but you can make a lot out of that tiny depth and they might consist of hundreds of different layers of paint and varnish. Then there is also the problem with glares and shadows. A lot painters use them for effects, but even if they don't, they are ususally present in a painting because there was no need to remove them, the human brain just ignores them in a painting. But caught on a photograph those glares and shadows suddenly become very disturbing.
I've done some copying by hand and I would say that to me it would be a lot easier to make decent reproductions of the paintings in question (renaissance paintings are usually very easy to copy, despite common beliefs are more modern paintings harder top copy) hand then with a camera, a bit more time consuming but easier.
Photos cannot, by their nature, copy a painting. And, whether or not someone may call something "art" has no bearing on its copyright status. Copyright does not depend on artistic merit.
If you think otherwise, then feel free to try an change the law. I look forward to your Court of Artistic Merit. UNtil then, what you think "should" happen is of little relevance.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Scraping photographs that somebody spent a lot of time, money and effort to capture and process from their website and uploading it somewhere else where it is presumably relicensed is an obnoxious thing to do even if it's not illegal in the US due to some legal technicality. If these guys wanted these images so badly they should have arranged to use their own resources to either license or take the photographs themselves.
People these days are so morally bankrupt when it comes to digital content that they can't recognize right from wrong. My guess is buddy would have done the same regardless of the actual legal status in the US and he just happened to get lucky.
Since WMF has no intention to remove them, the burden is now on the user Dcoetzee to remove them...
Which lead me to think why not let Dcoetzee to remove the photographs and let someone to re-upload them with botnet? (Or someone does anonymous user, and uploads them with library machine)
Indeed, I have a bunch of photos from the British Museum. I remember rounding a corner and wondering what the huge crowd was all about, and realizing that, yes, that was indeed the Rosetta Stone.
It seems to only be art galleries that do this. I should have pointed that out.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
How did those images get to the US ? He broke the rules to obtain the images.
No he didn't. The museum offered the images for free download, he downloaded them. That part is unambiguously legal. The part where the museum got touchy was the uploading to the wiki.
the EU doesn't officially recognise software patents. So it would be ok for us to just copy and resell Windows and stick 2 fingers up at Microsoft would it ?
False analogy. It would be ok for us (the EU company) to violate one of the ridiculous software patents when we make our own original software. It wouldn't be OK to redistribute Windows, since that is not a patent violation but a copyright violation (and thus a tort in the EU as well due to the Berne convention).
Get a whole bunch of Brits to photograph the NPG building itself, then register their images with the copyright office.
The images are unambiguously in the public domain? How so? The museum seems to think otherwise- and I (as a photographer and somewhat knowledgeable in copyright law for photography) tend to agree.
The moment a photographer presses the shutter button to capture an image the photographer owns the right to the image. The photographer- not the corporation who hired them. In some countries a blind photographer can tells someone else to press the shutter button and the blind photographer owns the copyright.
Now the photographer can assign rights, as per a contract, to the entity that has hired them to do the photography work- and that assignment can be irrevocable, single use, multi use, first press, etc. But no matter what when that button went down a copywritten work was created.
So what we have here is a very confusing summary of a legal letter claiming that the museum owns the copyrights and had the original, full size images taken by the photographer, available online but not directly linked. Their excuse is abhorrent, IMHO, to claim that knowing how to use a URL and download something is illegal. I don't think they have a leg there- but not knowing the particulars about the contract signed, who funded it (I'm assuming it was public dollars, but that's an assumption), the business relationship between the photographer and the museum... I think it's a very big stretch to claim their assertions are without merit.
A photographer lighting artwork may (and this comes from experience) spend hours trying to get all the nuances of the painting recorded properly. What would you say if the photographer had to take 9 consecutive images at different exposures and merge them all into a HDR-type image, then spend hours rendering it down to sRGB to view correctly on the screen. Brush strokes can reflect light- perhaps he had to cross-polarize shots carefully.
What I'm saying is that a photo of a painting is still considered a copyrightable item- you may wish it to be derivative to the 'public domain' but if that were the case any photograph in front of a public domain piece of work would automatically be public domain- and it is clearly not.
We don't know all the story, but it is very evident to me that he crossed the line. Intentions are good- I admire it- but definitely did something that was not in the spirit of wiki and may be against the law.
And no, whomever marked my other comments troll- this is not a troll. Just because I'm taking a stand against what you think "Free is right all the time" doesn't make me a troll. I'm providing thoughtfully logically laid out information for additional discussion.
and in a strange twist of fate, the movie Star Wars has become public domain despite the Corporate Revenue Protection Act of 2100 which made every last bowel movement copyrighted until infinity. Some sort of mixup... but it's public domain.
In another strange twist of fate, every existing copy of the film has become unusable... the films have long since rotted away, the holographic cubes were all victims of light-rot or something... so the film Star Wars is lost to the world.
Until I find a DVD in a garage sale, it miraculously seems to have survived the disc-eating microbes, and through my arcane knowledge of ancient DVD ripping tools, I am able to successfully extract a copy, correcting for dropouts, making it all nice and clean and watchable.
Do I now hold the copyright to Star Wars? Am I an instant bajillionaire?
In the UK I am, I guess.
Back to the present. As a collector, I own many out-of-copyright books and other materials, some of them the only ones known. I can take great effort to reproduce them... do I own the copyright on them?
Only in a totally insane corporate kleptocratic world. The very intent behind copyright in the first place was that such things WOULD be public domain, and that COPIES of them would be public domain, and would be recopied and recopied.
Laws like this turn the original intent of copyright on its head.
This space available.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.
Actually a lot of US museums ban photography too, I assumed it was to protect the souls of the pictures.
its YOUR money, they cant withhold what you, public, bought with YOUR money from YOU. especially sue the responsibles in person. they are the ones who should pay for misusing public authority.
Read radical news here
Not entirely true. Certain items in the National Archives are not available for photography. ISTR that there is a flag (the one flying over Fort McHenry??) that is only viewable in a special room with no flash photos allowed.
That said, those are rare exceptions, not the rule.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
According to the user's wiki page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dcoetzee
"Hi! I'm [real name], an American software developer at Microsoft Research ..."
I see no reason to help or care about someone who works for Microsoft.
If you produce any original work it is copyright. That's it. No need to mail it to yourself. If you take a photograph of anything in public (but not in the public domain) then that is copyright. If you take a photograph of someone the photo is still copyright but you would need a model release form signed by them to ensure you had full rights of commercial explotation. (The BBC has this agreement on its website for anyone who wants to give them license free images.) If you take a photograph for someone the contract makes it clear whether those commissioning the work own the copyright or the photographer retains the copyright. If you are employed full time to take photographs with their equipment and their materials - they own the copyright.
The content of the photograph is irrelevant unless it contains an image of anything that is still copyright - the original copyright owners rights are infringed if you publish it - they will sue, you would be stupid to defend it. They will charge you two grand plus lawyers fees.
All of this is covered by the UK instrument of law:
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 http://www.england-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880048_en_2#pt1-ch1-pb1-l1g1
where photographs and their contents are clearly defined:
Artistic works
(1) In this Part "artistic work" means--
(a) a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, irrespective of artistic quality,
*
"photograph" means a recording of light or other radiation on any medium on which an image is produced or from which an image may by any means be produced, and which is not part of a film;
I am fairly certain that this is in accordance with the European Union Copyright laws since the EU has pursued a policy of uniformity in laws of this type.
Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
Yes, yes, yes- everyone holds up that particular case as a shiny bright sword.
Unfortunately it is not the same- we know none of the technical details of what was done with the UK works- not to mention the UK work was done in- the UK.
Thus factually we do not have enough information to make a determination- and regardless I stand by my statement- the guy is a schmuck for doing what he did.
They are thus preserving their value/investment in these pictures. If there are not any legitimate copies then people need to visit. Note that entrance is free, but I assume that funding of the NPG is, partly, dependent on the number of visitors.
I suspect that if these pictures are loaned out (to some other gallery) a condition of the loan will be 'no public domain pictures'.
The only legitimate way that we have of getting these 'free' is to wait until the photos in dispute fall out of copyright.
Circumventing copy protection?
Citation needed that such circumvention was actually performed.
they've offered to work out terms for lower resolution imagery to be made available to Wikipedia
What kind of low-resolution? 128x128px?
And what kind of "made available"? Projects run by Wikimedia Foundation doesn't use images that are made available only to WMF and not to downstream reusers.
The WikiScanner reveals the NPG have been busy vandalising Wikipedia themselves!
There's juvenile vandalism from them here and here.
They have also posted notices on pages that use low resolution images of their owned paintings, obscuring the encyclopedic content. This type of vandalism was done to at least articles related to images of the resolution 494x600, 494x600, 500x726, 494x600, ?, 322x250, 137x200, ?, 203x255 and 408x562.
So much for the low resolution image agreement!
How did those images get to the US ? He broke the rules to obtain the images.
When you access the Zoomify client on their website, the browser downloads the tiles of the image and may cache them for later use. How could such a common access pattern be breaking any rules in the country where the servers are?
What someone does with the tiles in another jurisdiction after they have been rendered on screen with the provided software has nothing to do with the servers anymore, legally or computationally.
His own user page states (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Dcoetzee).
I'm Derrick Coetzee, an English Wikipedia administrator with background in computer science and mathematics.
I'm Derrick Coetzee, an English Wikipedia administrator
A poor choice of phrasing, but I presume he means he's an administrator of English Wikipedia (as opposed to the foreign language versions)...
His "English Wikipedia" user page states "I'm Derrick Coetzee, an American software developer at Microsoft Research carrying a masters in computer science and bachelor degrees in computer science and mathematics, and an administrator on the English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. I'm starting on my Ph.D. at the University of California, Berkeley in August 2009."
(Well, I suppose that could mean he's "A developer of American software"...)
Who says they were uploaded under CC? The images are clearly tagged correctly with the "Public Domain" tag.
(Even if someone did try to apply CC to a public domain image, in the US it would be meaningless for the same reason that the Gallery's claim has no grounds.)
they have no right to apply to someone else's work
Oh, I love it. But it's okay for you to claim ownership on someone else's public domain work?
I am a spoiled citizen of the USA ( any citizen from Canada to Argentina is an American ), and i live near Washington D.C..
Someone from the United States of Mexico is a Mexican. Someone from the United States of America is an American. It's also unambiguous. Someone could be a North American or a South American of from the Americas, but American describes people from the US and only from the US with no ambiguity. So I'm always curious why people make such a big deal about it. Just because part of the continent name is in the name of the country isn't a reason to become stupid about what the people who live there should be called.
Learn to love Alaska
it is not the same- we know none of the technical details of what was done with the UK works
The threat letter from the museum pretty throughly concedes the issue, instead trying to claim applicability of UK law and claim certainty of such copyright under UK law (untrue, it is actually an open and iffy question under UK law), and the letter proceeds with the intimidation tactic of piling on every half-plausible charge plus the kitchen sink.
The US Supreme Court has ruled that there is a constitutional requirement for a modicum of creative expression to obtain a copyright. The Supreme Court generally sets the "creative contribution" threshold incredibly low, but concluded that "slavishly" uncreative slavishly accurate photographic reproduction of other people's 2D artwork did not possess any significant quantity of creative expression. Such images are sometimes produced by nothing more than dropping the original on a flatbed scanner and hitting the COPY button, however even where substantial labor and skill are applied, the very POINT of such work is to slavishly AVOID any new creative expression from creeping into the new image. The very intent is to achieve zero creative expression.
If you as a photographer find that objectionable, all I can say is you should avoid jobs for "slavishly unexpressive" reproduction of other people's 2D artwork, or simply get paid upfront as "work for hire" for it. It seems to me it's an extraordinarily narrow exception with a fairly simple workaround.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
A photographer lighting artwork may (and this comes from experience) spend hours trying to get all the nuances of the painting recorded properly. What would you say if the photographer had to take 9 consecutive images at different exposures and merge them all into a HDR-type image, then spend hours rendering it down to sRGB to view correctly on the screen. Brush strokes can reflect light- perhaps he had to cross-polarize shots carefully.
If all of that work was done in order to capture the painting with maximum fidelity to the original, then there is no copyright.
Copyright is not related to effort, it's related to creativity. In this case, that means that a photographer who shoots from some interesting angle or employs some unusual lighting or other techniques to try to add his own interpretation to the original painting would have a copyright interest. But the harder the photographer works to remove his own expression from the resulting image, the less copyright can accrue. So in your example, the photographer would have more copyright protection if he did less work, or if he failed in his effort to faithfully reproduce the original.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Unfortunately it is not the same- we know none of the technical details of what was done with the UK works
Unless there is some evidence that the photographer added his own expression to the works, the technical details are irrelevant. Assuming the photographer did a good job, there is no copyright under US law.
not to mention the UK work was done in- the UK.
Also irrelevant to allegedly infringing activities that took place in the US and are subject to US law.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
If the NPG does not want this to happen again, they can watermark the images or stop publishing them outside the UK.
If you don't understand the international nature of the Internet you should not be using it.
If you make a work public you must consider that it may be perfectly legitimate for people in other countries to copy it for a variety of reasons.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Copyright protects the creation of original content.
How trying to reproduce something exactly is creative?
The NPG should have in their budget the photography of the paintings without any expectation of holding copyright of the photographs themselves.
They can publish the photographs in as many formats as they wish (books, post cards, calendars, whatever). Those works would certainly be protected by copyright.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Let's make this perfectly clear for you non-UK/GB folk.
It's my taxes that pay for the purchase, upkeep and display of all these works of art (and all other UK/GB tax payers). Those works and the museum itself belong to the people of UK/GB (as in ownership), what is done with it is at the discretion of the body that we have appointed to do so.
They committed to, online, allow the viewing of said pieces of work (they didn't need to) at a cost to us the taxpayer. We paid for the cameraman, the logistics and technical requirements to present these online to the rest of the world, at our cost. We also permit, upon request and cost, to use those pictures which, under UK copyright law, belong to either the photographer or the employer of the photographer at the time the picture was take. Irrelevant that it is a piece of public art, the art is, the image is not. We have a right to charge for items under our copyright that cost us, the taxpayer, to produce. Deal with it.
And isn't it ironic that when it's anti-US you lot scream the loudest, yet when an American does it with a picture of Obama, legal processes ensue... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster#Origin_and_copyright_issues
When all is said and done, nothing changes...
> American describes people from the US and only from the US with no ambiguity.
'American' unambiguously means 'someone from America.' The only ambiguity is what 'America' means, and there seems to be a consensus that the USA = America.
When the President of the U.S. says "my fellow Americans," I'm fairly sure he's not addressing Canadians and Mexicans.
The thing is that if the US user is found guilty in the UK, he may get arrested immediately if he ever enters the UK. So what if he has to go on a business trip to the UK sometime?
Point is, it doesn't matter if he's a US citizen, he can still be tried and found guilty in the UK and they may still lock him up if he ever sets foot on UK soil.
neat, huh?