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!'"

Comments

The law is on London's side

[BadAnalogyGuy]

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.

Re:The law is on London's side

[David Gerard]

Bridgeman v Corel establishes firmly in US law that the photos are not in fact creative works, and that the images are public domain. The NPG's letter actually acknowledges this.

NPG web site makes it clear

[Bazman]

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...

These plaintiffs are being very reasonable

[Antique Geekmeister]

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.

Sue and be subject to radioactive publicity

[David Gerard]

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.

Re:Sue and be subject to radioactive publicity

[julian67]

"his actions were completely within US law"

Circumventing copy protection? DMCA anyone? If he did this to a US site he would be charged with a felony. As the lawyer's letter states the act of circumvention of copy prevention took place on UK based servers and he's guilty under UK law.

"Unlawful circumvention of technical measures

s.296ZF(1) of the CDPA provides as follows:

        "In sections 296ZA to 296ZE, "technological measures" are any technology, device or component which is designed, in the normal course of its operation, to protect a copyright work other than a computer program."

s.296ZA(1) of the CDPA provides as follows:

        "This section applies where -
        (a) effective technological measures have been applied to a copyright work other than a computer program; and

        (b) a person (B) does anything which circumvents those measures knowing, or with reasonable grounds to know, that he is pursuing that objective.

As you know, the images from our client's website that you have copied were made available from our client's website using "Zoomify" software. As you know, Zoomify is an application that is used to publish photographic images in such a way that an entire high resolution image is never made available to a user although high-resolution extracts or "tiles" are made available one-at-a-time. Our client used the Zoomify technology to protect our client's copyright in the high resolution images.

By deliberately posting images from our client's website to the Wikipedia website in which the Zoomify software has been circumvented you have therefore acted in breach of section 296ZA(1) of the CDPA.

[edit] "

If you contend that the act of circumvention took place in the US then he's guilty under the far more onerous US law. Whichever way you look at it he did something that if discovered inevitably leads to either litigation or criminal prosecution. The NPG made an attempt to deal with this on a less formal basis and was rebuffed, hence litigition ensues.