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!'"
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
If they sue him in the US, it'll get tossed out on the basis that the US does not recognize these works as having copright (or any "slavish" reproductions thereof, according to Corel v. Bridgeman); if they sue him in the UK, he can ignore the lawsuit, have a default judgement entered against him, and good luck to them in pursuing it.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
It makes it clear how the National Portrait Gallery WANTS to make additional money from reproductions of classical artworks. It doesn't make it clear whether that is right. If the lawyer's interpretation of the law i right, the NPG does have the right under UK copyright law to do so. However it's morally wrong because:
1) The law is flawed: The act of photographing a painting with the best quality of reproduction of the original is a technical exercise, not a creative act. It's not essentially different from an experienced photocopier operator making a photocopy. It should not therefore add additional copyright privileges over and above the item that is being photographed.
2) The National Portrait Gallery is a public body who receive public funds on the basis that they display and educate a many people as possible about the artworks they have. The ability to disseminate high quality reproductions via the internet at no cost to them should be thought of as a godsend, not as a financial loss. They are supposed to be serving the public good, not acting like a corporation. Thus even if the law could prevent this happening, they shouldn't use it.