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.
Welcome to globalisation. Laws in the US aren't the same as the ones in the UK. In the UK we don't have fair use laws.
I'm wondering why this is different to the music mess caused by allofmp3; everyone was so upset that the Russians system was different and against "our" laws.
One of a couple of things is going to happen as we continue the Digital Revolution. Either we're going to need a global legal system since all this internet stuff is global, or we're going to have to shut down the internet and make it the "countrynet" so that everything you do is contained in the same legal framework.
Or, head, sand, bury.
the British Association of Picture Libraries and Agencies has weighed in on the dispute in favor of the NPG.
There's a shocker. These people are just as bad as the *AA here in the U.S. Their about us page just screams "we make money of every dirty copyright trick we can think of and pretend to do it for you, the artist, the photographer, the little guy". It's all such a sham.
Check out their site, I was going to quote some of it but you can't even right click the page without their stupid JavaScript alerting you that their site is their content, blah, blah. Hello, 1996 called they want their cheap tricks back. Obviously this stuff is easy to defeat but it's still ridiculous that they even do it at all.
I hope this suit goes all the way to the new Supreme Court England is setting up and that these idiots get a total smackdown. Hey, a guy can dream a little right?
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
Defenders of the Wikimedia Foundation say the images are in the public domain (even though they aren't under UK law) and applaud Coetzee as if he were some kind of Robin Hood. Unfortunately, it's a case of the poor stealing from the poor. If all museum images were simply appropriated by file-sharers under the rationale that they *should* be in the public domain, pretty soon there wouldn't be any museum willing to pay for the digitization of important works, and we'd all be worse off. See the rest of my argument here: http://www.xconomy.com/national/2009/07/17/art-isnt-free-the-tragedy-of-the-wikimedia-commons/
First off, I can't even copy some quotes from the article at http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=865802, because they've done that stupid hijacking of my browser (I know, I'm using IE - I'm at work), and they claim "copyright" over it (despite the fact that their article quotes over people...) Nevermind, View Source to the rescue.
Simon Cliffe of BAPLA says "We understand that other people who have had similar experiences with Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons have been told that they regard all images of out of copyright material as public domain"
Imagine that - thinking that out of copyright material is public domain!
"and dispute there is any copyright in a copy of an original work"
Not true at all - the point is that making a copy of public domain material doesn't constitute original work. They are perhaps confusing effort with originality.
"If owners of out of copyright material are not going to have the derivative works they have created protected, which will result in anyone being able to use them for free"
Just think, people might be able to use out of copyright material for free! When it's fully allowed by US law!
"but to assert the protection the law provides for their commercial interest"
US law provides them with no such protection. So they'll have to think up another way to profit from other people's work from centuries ago (not that there's any evidence that Wikipedia showing these images will harm their ability to profit - I don't think anyone goes "I'm not going to bother going to a gallery, when I could just sit at home on Wikipedia").
Musuems have collected and preserved much of the worlds cultural heritage. But at the same time they severely limit the publics enjoyment of the art and artifacts they seek to preserve.
I enjoy visiting a museum on occasion, but entry prices are usually extremely high and in the time that I have available I can usually only browse the highlights (from a respectul distance that hurts my eyes and blurs any details). Quick browses of paintings that their authors have spend weeks, or months on. You can ofen buy (expensive) books with again the same highlights of the collection, but not on a 1:1 scale.
High res scans would make all of this available to a much wider audience; worldwide, 24-7. Let them store that fragile 400+ year old painting in a secure bunker. Its the painting I am interested in, not the canvas.
Of course this would also make the museum obsolete; and kill off some major tourist attractions -- so expect some resistance from the old guard.
It kind of worries me that he hacked in and took the hi-res images. We run a gallery of biological images and it costs us a lot of money and effort to digitise our 80-100 year old collections in order to make them useful to the public and scientific community. We do want our images in the public domain and we do want them used, but we need to have the cash to keep doing this work as a small charity so clearly there needs to be some balance. If someone hacked in and took our hi-res images it might jeopardize our ability to add other images on our already shoe-string budget. If he gets away with that I'd be quite upset to be honest...
UK resident.
Working on a UK machine.
The National Portrait Gallery in London (Where the original pictures reside) DOES NOT CHARGE for entrance. I have spent many a wet lunch hour wandering around the Gallery enjoying the artwork.
I sells high quality prints of the Artwork. This is a way of raising funds for the upkeep and towards the purchase of new work.
As an Amateur photographer who has had their work pirated by someone from the USA and realises the futility of trying to stop them from claiming it as their own, I'm with the NPG on this one. Btw, I would have given the pirate a high quality copy of the picture if they had asked for it and agreed that the copyright was mine. Instead, he stole it.
I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
I'm seriously torn here about whether I support the museum or the little guy. I don't think anyone would argue that the original pictures are in the public domain but that isn't what is being shown on Wikipedia, what is getting shown there is a photograph of a public domain work. I think it's fair to argue that a non-trivial amount of work went into taking these photographs and therefore they fall under copyright legislation. If you think it was a trivial amount of work ask yourself how long it took a professional photographer to capture all these shots - I'll bet it ran to at least several weeks of work and probably more (at 20 paintings a day it would be 30 weeks work and I doubt they could do twenty a day).
On the other hand this museum is paid for by the people and presumably the payment to have the photographs taken was also public money. I would say, therefore, that there is a strong argument that these photographs should be in the public domain (at least for residents of the UK). Strengthening the freedom argument, to my mind, is the fact that the museum doesn't allow people to take their own photographs in effect causing a monopoly situation on public works.
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
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 ?
Thank you for taking the time to contact the National Portrait Gallery. Please see below the Gallery's position statement: The National Portrait Gallery is very strongly committed to giving access to its Collection. In the past five years the Gallery has spent around £1 million digitising its Collection to make it widely available for study and enjoyment. We have so far made available on our website more than 60,000 digital images, which have attracted millions of users, and we believe this extensive programme is of great public benefit. The Gallery supports Wikipedia in its aim of making knowledge widely available and we would be happy for the site to use our low-resolution images, sufficient for most forms of public access, subject to safeguards. However, in March 2009 over 3000 high-resolution files were appropriated from the National Portrait Gallery website and published on Wikipedia without permission. The Gallery is very concerned that potential loss of licensing income from the high-resolution files threatens its ability to reinvest in its digitisation programme and so make further images available. It is one of the Gallery's primary purposes to make as much of the Collection available as possible for the public to view. Digitisation involves huge costs including research, cataloguing, conservation and highly-skilled photography. Images then need to be made available on the Gallery website as part of a structured and authoritative database. To date, Wikipedia has not responded to our requests to discuss the issue and so the National Portrait Gallery has been obliged to issue a lawyer's letter. The Gallery remains willing to enter into a dialogue with Wikipedia. This statement will be published on the National Portrait Gallery's website in due course. Once again, thank you for your feedback. I do hope that you will be able to visit the National Portrait Gallery both online (www.npg.org.uk - where visitors can freely view more than 60,000 low resolution digital images of works in the Collection) and in person in the near future. Yours sincerely, Helen
Anyone care to try posting some images from Getty on Wiki....?
http://www.gettyimages.com/Corporate/LicenseInfo.aspx
Obviously, you haven't been paying any attention to anything posted above you.
NPG isn't right as far as -US- law is concerned. They ARE right as far as -UK- law is concerned.
Photographs of Public Domain works are not copyrightable under US law. This is a special exception to the general rule concerning copyright and photographs, and only applies to works in the Public Domain. In the specific case of Public Domain works, photographic reproduction of the works is treated as a mechanical process, and not a creative process (the way photographs are normally treated under US law).
There is no exception yet for photographic reproductions of Public Domain works under UK law, which is what this entire dispute is about: The conflict between the two laws, as it applies between NPG (UK) and Wikipedia (US).
As I stated in another post, the most fair and equitable solution for all sides is for Wikipedia to remove the high-res versions and replace them with the still high-quality but lower-res versions offered to them for 'Fair Use' by NPG.
Everybody wins, no courts or ambulance-chasers need to be involved.
@Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
What I don't get is why people haven't started sneaking in cameras and taking the pictures themselves. The rentacops there can't make you delete the photos, and I'm sure that legally they can only ask you to leave. I think you could take lots of photos before they even noticed. After a while I'm sure we'd get all 3000 images!
Under US Law, which you say is "actually the same thing" as UK law in this regards, you are quite entirely wrong.
For images there is "BRIDGEMAN ART LIBRARY, LTD. v. COREL CORP., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)" which held that:
For your book example you say
You are wrong again. Facsimile editions (which preserve the layout) don't get a copyright. Even new printings (same words, new layout) don't get a new copyright on the words (they layout may or may not). New text, like new introductions or authors bios do. That doesn't mean publishers don't claim copyright, but it may mean they are invalid. Take a look at the Project Gutenberg FAQ
I believe that most posters are mistating UK law. NPG's statement of the law are very carefully parsed and seem to say only that some photographs of out of copyright works could be copyrightable without actually making statements about protection of slavish copies. In fact their statements are probably true about US law. What is clear under US law, and is unclear but supported by some UK precedent is that a slavish, accurate, faithful copies of a public domain work, that look just like the public domain work (which involves for paintings a difficult, expensive, process) are not copyrightable.
OTOH, the UK does have database protection which protects collections of facts and data even where the underlying data/facts are not protectable or are public domain. US law has nothing like this. The database copyright is designed specifically to protect the sweat of the brow effort in assembling collections data. Further, there can be questions about how the photographs were accessed. I think NPG has a better shot at applying this law as well as some of the other causes of action involving misappropriation of their computer facilities, maybe trespass, etc.
You miss GP's point. The problem isn't that UK will extradite people to Iran (it doesn't). The problem is that UK will extradite people to US, because US demanded that, and a corresponding treaty was signed; however, US will still not extradite people to UK. That's where the hypocrisy is .
You miss GP's point. The problem isn't that UK will extradite people to Iran (it doesn't). The problem is that UK will extradite people to US, because US demanded that, and a corresponding treaty was signed; however, US will still not extradite people to UK. That's where the hypocrisy is .
There is no policy that "the UK will extradite people to the US" or "the US will not extradite people to the UK". Extradition treaties have all sorts of provisos and lots of executive discretion.
Extradition is not about arrogant countries forcing others to enforce their laws. (At least, no more than any international agreements are coercive.) It's about countries that are friendly and cooperative working together to allow crimes to be prosecuted by the country that was most affected. America doesn't and can't force any country to extradite anyone. I can guarantee you that Iran doesn't extradite to America any more than the reverse.
The UK does not always extradite to the US. Look at David Carruthers or Peter Dicks. Both are UK citizens, whom the US wanted to prosecute for violating US law. How did the US do so? By arresting them when they entered the US. They weren't extradited — probably because the UK would have refused, since they did nothing that was illegal in the UK. By the same token, as far as I know, the UK will not extradite anyone who might be subject to capital punishment.
On the other hand, the US sure does extradite to the UK. We have an extradition treaty that we're required to comply with. If maybe the terms differ between the US and the UK (do they?), well, that's politics for you. When you have to compromise over a range of issues, the result isn't likely going to look perfectly coherent on any specific issue. If the UK was more generous with extradition, it probably got some other concession from the US in exchange.
MediaWiki developer, Total War Center sysadmin
Photographs of Public Domain works are not copyrightable under US law. This is a special exception to the general rule concerning copyright and photographs, and only applies to works in the Public Domain. In the specific case of Public Domain works, photographic reproduction of the works is treated as a mechanical process, and not a creative process (the way photographs are normally treated under US law).
This isn't a special exception, it's an application of a general principle: in the US, a work can be copyrighted only insofar as it's at least minimally creative. The biggest general precedent here is Feist v. Rural. So when you do something technically very demanding, but uncreative, you get no new copyright.
If you reproduce ("slavishly copy") a work that was copyrighted by Bob Smith, then your reproduction is also copyrighted by Bob Smith, not you. If you reproduce a work that was in the public domain, then so is your reproduction. The reproduction always has the same copyright status as what's being copied, in all cases, as long as it's a slavish copy.
As I stated in another post, the most fair and equitable solution for all sides is for Wikipedia to remove the high-res versions and replace them with the still high-quality but lower-res versions offered to them for 'Fair Use' by NPG.
Everybody wins, no courts or ambulance-chasers need to be involved.
No, someone has to lose. Either the NPG has to lose a revenue stream they thought they'd get, or anyone who wants high-res images has to lose the ability to get them for free from the Wikimedia Commons. There's no way for everyone to win here.
MediaWiki developer, Total War Center sysadmin