Slashdot Mirror
New Developments In NPG/Wikipedia Lawsuit Threat
Raul654 writes "Last week, it was reported that the UK's National Portrait Gallery had threatened a lawsuit against an American Wikipedian for uploading pictures from the NPG's website to Wikipedia. The uploaded pictures are clearly in the public domain in the United States. (In the US, copies of public domain works are also in the public domain. UK law on the matter is unclear.) Since then, there have been several developments: EFF staff attorney Fred von Lohmann has taken on the case pro-bono; Eric Moeller, Wikimedia Foundation Deputy Director, has responded to the NPG's allegations in a post on the WMF blog; and the British Association of Picture Libraries and Agencies has weighed in on the dispute in favor of the NPG."
I fully agree that the paintings are in the public domain, but it does NOT mean that the digital photos are. If he created his own photos, he could post them. The only question is whether or not a straight copy of a work can be copyrighted on its own... which is why the museum is arguing that artistry went into creating them.
Having done museum copywork in the past, I can assure you that getting high-quality images of paintings is NOT simple - lighting is critical to capture the texture, color, and avoid reflections and shadows. It's not just point-and-click. I'd side with the museum here, sorry!
madCow.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
That depends on the reader being at or near the geographical location of the painting. When reading an article about the Mona Lisa on Wikipedia, I expect to see a photo of the article in question for purpose of discussion, not "to see this painting, please visit the Louvre in France"
I'd simply go elsewhere to find a picture.
*.sig
UK resident.
Working on a UK machine.
I seem to recall that people from the UK have been extradited to the US and charged, for things they did in the UK that the UK authorities decided were legal (or at least things that they should not be prosecuted for).
And a certain Russian programmer was arrested and jailed in the US for things he did in Russia that were legal there... remember that one ?
Why should the reverse not apply ?
No, the better solution is for both groups to compromise. NPG already offered lower-res versions of the same photographs for Wikipedia to use free of charge. I think to retain good-will for all, and not appear to be selfish asstards, Wikipedia should take them up on the offer. The representatives on all sides could then present this as a workable solution to similar future situations without involving courts and lawyers. Everybody wins, including the public.
@Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
There is a difference. Your photograph was still within it's copyright period.
Copyright extends to 70 years past the author's death (in the UK). Since you are still alive, any photograph you take is obviously still within it's copyright - with one caveat.
The caveat is exactly what is at issue. You cannot claim copyright on a direct copy of someone else's work. You CAN claim copyright on a DERIVATIVE work. So the question here is was the photograph of the painting a derivative work?
The goal of the photograph was to reproduce the painting in digital form exactly as it was meant to be viewed in the gallery. No changes were made, and the painting was not used as the basis for a new work (even a person standing next to it within the shot is a 'derivative' work). Which would mean the photographs in question were NOT derivative works, but merely digital copies of the original, and not copyrightable in and of themselves (they would piggy back on the original copyright).
Which means any digital image of a painting that is in the public domain, is also public domain - as it is not a derivative artwork. And you cannot steal something that is public domain.
In your case, yes, someone stole your art work, because it IS within it's copyright. And regardless of whether they stole a print, the digital image, or any other faithful reproduction of your photograph, it would still be counted as illegally copying of your work. But 70 years after you die, anyone and their dog can take your image with impunity. They can even take the image of someone else's photograph of your image on a screen (as long as it's not altered in any way).
So as someone else said, yes, it might take a lot of technical expertise to faithfully capture these images to do them justice, but that does not suddenly give the person taking them copyright on what is, essentially, a faithful reproduction of the original artwork not a derivative.
By way of example, how about we take the works of Shakespear. Originally released in manuscript form. Someone took that manuscript and typed it into computer text files. Does that mean that person now has copyright on the resulting text file? It certainly took a lot of effort to transcribe the text - but it doesn't matter. Just because it took a lot of effort to do something (it takes a lot of effort to paint a forgery, too) does not infer copyright - if the text is identical to the original shakespear, then it is just a faithful reproduction on another medium and still int he public domain.