UK's National Portrait Gallery Threatens To Sue Wikipedia User 526
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!'"
The law is on London's side (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
> The paintings may be in the public domain, but the photographs are copyright to the
> photographer.
Under UK law. As the letter from the lawyer admits, they are probably not protected by copyright at all in the US. Unfortunately, the parties appear to be residents of the UK. Where are the Wikipedia servers on which the photos now reside located?
Re:The law is on London's side (Score:5, Informative)
The user they threatened, and the servers, are both located in the US. There's really no way for them to pursue this.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The user they threatened, and the servers, are both located in the US. There's really no way for them to pursue this.
Copyright law is international. Only a handful of nations have not signed on in whole or in part to the concept of copyright as it is known in the USA.
Re:The law is on London's side (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm not a lawyer or anything ... but that just sounds like a really, really bad idea.
Re: (Score:2)
How so? The UK has no power to enforce a lawsuit in the US.
Seriously, what are they going to do? Fine him if he ever goes to England?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Did you read my post? What bit of
(e) distributes otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright, an article which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe is, an infringing copy of a copyright work.
did you find difficult? "otherwise than in the course of a business" means non-commerci
Corel v. Bridgeman. Mod parent up (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The law is on London's side (Score:5, Informative)
The works in the photo may not have copyright, but the fact is, the photos still have copyright. - only if the photograph of that public domain work has sufficient creative input from the creator to create a new copyright. The bar for 'creative input' is fairly low (deciding where to stand in order to take a picture of a sculpture is enough), but a flatbed scan is clearly not enough, as the court explicitly found in the Bridgeman case.
Let's say someone made a cd, where they performed songs that are all in public domain. They still get copyright over their version of the performance. - that is because the performance of a public domain work is different from the original work. These pictures are, by definition, not different.
The same would apply to a photo that you have taken. - No, it doesn't. See above
Re:The law is on London's side (Score:5, Informative)
The works in the photo may not have copyright, but the fact is, the photos still have copyright. - only if the photograph of that public domain work has sufficient creative input from the creator to create a new copyright.
It's a degree of 'skill, labour or judgement' in the UK.
The bar for 'creative input' is fairly low (deciding where to stand in order to take a picture of a sculpture is enough), but a flatbed scan is clearly not enough, as the court explicitly found in the Bridgeman case.
It appears to be generally expected that this won't affect UK judgements. The NPC is also claiming a breach of database right and contract. Presumably this, legally, comes down to a question of whether an infringing act happened in the UK. (Practically speaking I imagine it'll come down to something entirely different, such as taking up there offer of low resolution images in order to avoid the risk of a personal tragedy of a lawsuit). Authorizing another to perform an infringing act in the UK is against UK law, even if the person giving the authorization is not in the UK. This Wikipedia user is specifically accused of this. It's also secondary infringement to transmit something from the UK to another country knowing that infringing copies will be made of it outside the UK and then re-imported (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880048_en_2#pt1-ch2-pb2-l1g24 [opsi.gov.uk] - 24(2)). Things don't look too good for him from this POV either.
Let's say someone made a cd, where they performed songs that are all in public domain. They still get copyright over their version of the performance. - that is because the performance of a public domain work is different from the original work.
Actually, you get performance rights (in the UK, anyway). You get them because a special bit of law says so.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what reciprocal agreements are for. In general, these agreements say that one country will honor court judgments from another country provided that that other country has jurisdiction. That is almost certainly not the case here. The actions occurred in the US, the files were published on servers in the US, and all of this is legal under US law.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
NPG says the servers they were copied from are in the UK. And that's probably true. The wiki server they were uploaded to and the copier may well be in the US. It's a finer point of law where the copying is deemed to have taken place.
Re: (Score:2)
But he'll never be able to set foot in the U.K. again.
I doubt it would be that serious for a civil suit. Criminal maybe, but I'd doubt that this would rate high enough to warrant banishment.
IF they were able to figure out that he showed up and owed money in the short span of a vacation, I'd be impressed.
But who knows? Them Brits are kinda crazy. :)
Re: (Score:2)
> Copyright law is international.
No it isn't. While there are treaties that obligate the signatories to bring their copyright laws into conformance with some general principles the actual laws are national and are enforced only by national courts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And in the US, where the supposed violation took place, copying and posting these pictures does not violate copyright law. Copyright may have been broken if it were in GB, but it wasn't in GB, it was in the US and it wasn't broken here.
The UK can have copyright here, and it will be honored according to US law, but it will NOT be honored according to British law.
Re:The law is on London's side (Score:4, Funny)
Greetings in Christ.
I am Mirriam Obasanjo, widow of former President Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria. I have 1 MILLION datacenters supplied as part of a government contract which was cancelled. Unless I can get them out of the country soon they will have to be returned. In return for your cooperations I will give you a fee of ten percent. Please tell me your bank account details so I can arrange transfer of the datacenters as soon as possible.
Yours in great honesty,
Mirrian Obasanjo.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope - the uploader is in the US, the servers are in the US, the WMF is in the US. This was unambiguously legal in the US under well-established copyright law.
They're making threats because they think they can bully him anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, but their UK servers were configured to willingly transmit copies of the work to a country where those works are not copyrighted. It is entirely within the realm of possibility to screen connections and send images to only countries where the works are under copyright, but they chose not to do so.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Well that may be true under the law, but who cares? The laws is being written to serve corporate power elites, there's no reason to respect it anymore, just do what's right, not what's legal.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Doesn't that depend on whether or not the photos were made "work for hire"? Does the concept of "work for hire" exist in UK copyright law?
http://nylawline.typepad.com/photolawyer/work_for_hire/ [typepad.com]
Re: (Score:2)
This is a pretty clear case of catalog photography as in photographs for the purpose of cataloging the items. Any work that was done in the pre-Disney era is not going to be subjected to copyright protection and since these photos weren't creative in nature rather an attempt to duplicate public domain work, they aren't entitled to copyright protection. They may feel entitled to being paid, but they're n
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
False - Bridgeman v Corel. Mere sweat of the brow does not create a new copyright.
If you read the NPG's letter, they acknowledge that the uploader (an American) hasn't done anything against the law in the US. They're suing to bully.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So I pay for some photographs be taken, someone else takes 3,300 of them (they're clearly indicated as not for taking) and uploads them all to Wikimedia under a Creative Commons license that they have no right to apply to someone else's work, and this is a case for jury nullification?
Re:The law is on London's side (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The law is on London's side (Score:5, Insightful)
Those photographs are part of the national heritage of England. They derive
this from the nature of they work they are photographs of. They aren't even
derivative works. They're just copies. THEY'RE COPIES. These asshats are
trying to claim ownership of COPIES of very public domain works.
This isn't even like a high school performance of Hamlet.
Mebbe if they did the Warhol thing with one of the old Kings they would
have a moral/aristic leg to stand on.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Can I volunteer for that job? Don't mind the color vision thing - I'm usually pretty sure that red is red, and green is green. I mean, it's not THAT important is it?
Re:The law is on London's side (Score:5, Informative)
Of course this case won't fall under US jurisdiction, but if it did, this argument would not fly: in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Services Co. (499 US 340) the Supreme Court held that the purpose of copyright is to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, not to "reward the labor" of artists. It doesn't matter how much work you put into creating a work that is not copyrightable; that doesn't change the character of the work. Again, I'm not sure what the argument would be under British law, assuming they sued him there.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand I paid my taxes (and as I live in the UK it was my taxes) that then went to pay the national gallery to take these photos. I seem to have missed something about not paying for their creation :-)
On the other hand if I was not living in the UK, but somewhere, where sweat of brow does not allow you to copyright (say the USA) then the National Gallery are somewhat stuffed.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's true. I was in the Nat. Gallery a while back and I would have loved to take a photo of two Japanese ladies wearing stunning kimono, but would probably have been thrown out for whipping out my Canon.
Re:The law is on London's side (Score:5, Interesting)
'...someone in a different post argues that National Gallery does not allow the public to take pictures. Is that true? Not even without flash?'
Yes. Cory Doctorow has some fun with their policy here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/nov/13/pop.art.copyright [guardian.co.uk]
'The excellent programme for Pop Art Portraits, the current exhibition at London's National Portrait Gallery, has a lot to say about the pictures hanging on the walls and the diverse source material the artists used to produce their provocative works. Apparently they cut up magazines, copied comic books, drew trademarked cartoon characters like Minnie Mouse, reproduced covers from Time magazine, made ironic use of a cartoon Charles Atlas, painted over iconic photos of James Dean and Elvis Presley...Despite this, the programme does not say a word about copyright...There is, however, another message about copyright in the National Portrait Gallery: it is implicit in the "No Photography" signs prominently displayed throughout its rooms, including one by the entrance to the Pop Art Portraits exhibition. These signs are not intended to protect the works from the depredations of camera flashes (otherwise they would read "No Flash Photography"). No, the ban on pictures is meant to safeguard the copyright of the works hung on the walls - a fact that every member of staff I asked instantly confirmed. Indeed, it seems every square centimetre of the National Portrait Gallery is under some form of copyright. I wasn't even allowed to photograph the "No Photographs" sign. A member of staff explained that the typography and layout of the signs was itself copyrighted...Perhaps, just perhaps, this is actually a Dadaist show masquerading as a pop art show. Perhaps the point is to titillate us with the delicious irony of celebrating copyright infringement while simultaneously taking the view that even the "No Photography" sign is a form of property not to be reproduced without the permission that can never be had.'
Re:The law is on London's side (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It doesn't.
But the user and the servers are in the US. Thus US law.
what kind of question is that? (Score:3, Funny)
Huh? Did England secede?
The fantasy of nullification (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
The question to be answered in the courts is not, is it ethical?, but is it legal?.
So whose are the photographs? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
> So TFS is misleading again.
How?
Re: (Score:3)
Do you know what 19th century means? Here's a hint: 1800-1899. That would be public domain.
As for the photos, presumably the museum owns the copyright (although, the whole question is whether they can even claim a copyright at all--in the US probably not, in the UK maybe).
Well no shit the uploader is not the photographer. Did you need a degree in formal logic to figure that out?
The TFS doesn't skirt over any of this, you're just being intentionally dense (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt on this o
Re:So whose are the photographs? (Score:4, Informative)
A photographer working for the gallery itself took them. They do not allow visitors to take photos to protect their monopoly of reproductions of public domain paintings. In the US, a simple photo of a painting is not copyrighted because it has no original input. The gallery claims it is different in the UK, but who knows?
Re: (Score:2)
As a matter of UK law, the gallery's position is most likely correct. How it enforces this against Wikipedia and/or the user in question is a different story...
Re: (Score:2)
In as much as I'm 99% certain that the National Portrait Gallery doesn't allow photography in the site, I'd say that these are not the user's photos.
Well, that makes it straightforward. (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh. Well, the Foundation has apparently taken the stand that this is okay by them [wikimedia.org]. This was done by a straw poll [wikimedia.org] , 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Well, that makes it straightforward. (Score:4, Informative)
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.
And yet, despite the process being "a fucking joke", the community does not allow the upload of random pictures on the internet that they don't have a clear copyright assignment for. In fact, with respect to photographs of public-domain art, the community appears to have voted that only simple reproduction-style photographs of 2-dimensional artwork are presumptively acceptable, since photography of 3-dimensional art would necessary include creative elements (framing, lighting).
You may disagree with the result of their debate and consensus in this (and other) cases, but pretending that Wikimedia's self-policing is "a joke" and that they allow themselves any and all liberties is frankly ridiculous. A large number of Wikipedia pages have those "Have a free picture? Upload it." boxes precisely because they are quite strict about the requirement for images used on their pages.
Re: (Score:2)
Bridgeman v Corel [wikipedia.org] - the photos are quite definitely not copyrighted in the US.
The NPG's letter acknowledges that the US uploader did nothing illegal in US law, and that they're just threatening legal action because they think they can.
Very little funding comes from sales of postcards. Most is from public donations - e.g. $5 million from a US donor recently. Who will quite definitely be getting Wikimedians asking him if trying to work around US law is really something he wanted his money spent on.
Re: (Score:2)
And that is the very important part of this story. Unlike most countries' museums and galleries, state-run institutions do not charge admission. They
Copyright mess (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
>>Unfortunately photos are always copyrighted, even if they are just an attempt at reproducing something not currently covered.
Uh, sorta. It really depends if they're considered duplicates or original works. Duplicates generally have the same rights as the original.
Re:Copyright mess (Score:4, Informative)
> But when they are an attempt to represent just the original image, they should not be
> copyrightable.
And in the USA they aren't. Unfortunately these events are occuring in Europe.
Re:Copyright mess (Score:4, Informative)
Unfortunately these events are occuring in Europe. - no, they are not. The user they threatened is in the US, and the servers he uploaded to are in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Then he is safe. He had their permission for the initial download. Their complaint is about what he with those copies after he downloaded them, but he did that in the USA where UK courts have no jurisdiction and US courts say that what he did is legal.
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't it said a while back that a plain photograph of a public domain image automatically goes into public domain, unless it can be proven that the photograph is, in some way, unique? It sets a scary precedent if not.
Imagine being able to rescue your about-to-expire work of video/audio/music by re-recording it and calling it new? The base film would never be allowed to hit public domain because they could just sue anyone that uploads it, claiming that it's a re-recorded version with copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
> Wasn't it said a while back that a plain photograph of a public domain image
> automatically goes into public domain, unless it can be proven that the photograph
> is, in some way, unique?
That is USA law. The NPG is in the UK. Fortunately, the guy they are threatening to sue is in the USA, as are the servers with the pictures.
NPG web site makes it clear (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.npg.org.uk/business/images/use-on-web.php [npg.org.uk]
----
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...
Re:NPG web site makes it clear (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
mod up!
it's not as if there was a difficult process of obtaining the photos and if the NPG were going to charge the user to upload the photos on Wikipedia then he could always look elsewhere for photos or take them him/herself!
I think a lot of people forget common courtesy when they're on the net... if you're going to use someone else's effort, you should at least notify them. To me, this seems just like a case of ignorance... the user was simply filling out an entry and taking photos from official sites but not taking the time to read or even ask for permission
No, this is a case of purposely ignoring horribly bad copyright law in a country where a) the user doesn't reside b) the Commons server doesn't reside. Also, the picture wouldn't be usable for commons even if the museum gave their permission, because commons doesn't do "with permission", it needs PD, GFDL or CC without NC - so YOU can mirror it and not get sued.
Re: (Score:2)
Common courtesy is important. On the other hand, the real question is whether the user has "the right" to do this even if they object (legally and morally). I can't comment on the legality (IANAL), but I don't see any ethical problem with distri
These plaintiffs are being very reasonable (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:These plaintiffs are being very reasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
They're threatening an american user for doing what is perfectly legal in the US on servers based in the US. Their copyright claims have no merit whatsoever.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Did they obtain the images from a British server?
Jurisdiction is a messy topic on the internet. If you want to play silly buggers with it then you can probably expect such websites to be restricted to UK IPs. Shame, but if good faith isn't shown they won't have much choice to protect their rights under local law.
Re: (Score:2)
I must have missed something: how is this legal in the US?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
US courts have already ruled [wikipedia.org] that "slavishly accurate" reproductions of public domain works have no copyright protection.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Does it matter?
The server in the UK is owned by the copyright holder. The images stored on it are legitimate under UK copyright law because they're in the possession of the lawful owner.
An American connects to the UK server and downloads the images. He creates copies of them on his US computer. The copies would be illegal in the UK, but are public domain under US copyright law.
The American then uploads those images to a US server. The imag
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What possibly makes you think this lawsuit "won't go anywhere"? The violation is very clear, they're not asking for outrageous damages, and the law seems clearly in their favor. And the UK is very copyright friendly: people have been deliberately "shopping" to file their copyright lawsuits there for years now. They have a very reasonable chance of winning their lawsuit.
And it's hardly waste: the material existing at Wikimedia cuts directly into their own website traffic, and related revenues.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What possibly makes you think this lawsuit "won't go anywhere"?
Because it happened in the US, and it is completely legal in the US.
It won't go anywhere because there was no violation. Had it happened in the UK there would be a violation, but it didn't, it happened in the US. US law is -very- clear on this issue. Photographs of works of art in the public domain, without some sort of extra creative input, are automatically placed in the public domain. The more accurate to the original you make the picture, the less standing it has for copyright protection.
For example
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That is an _excellent_ question, and the sort that any judge should take into serious account. Making those collections of high quality images via other means lowers the value of prints from them, and of the images at the organization's website, and of art books that might be sold with those high quality images.
Also high quality images are difficult to make, and can actively damage the art: high intensity light and exposure to room air and dirt and moisture can be very hard on subtle pigments, which are rea
I use an IR camera as well as VIS (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
> 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.
They do ban photography.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They already banned photography.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Now I'm curious... got any examples online that I could look at, of IR vs VIS?
He could have.... (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:He could have.... (Score:5, Insightful)
False. Wikipedia doesn't do "for Wikipedia" licensing, and can't - its mission is to make reusable content.
Also, you're saying the NPG has to lock up culture to promote it, and sue people who actually promote it. This doesn't actually make sense.
The NPG actually acknowledges in their letter that the poster's actions were entirely legal in America, and that they're making a threat just because they think they can.
The Wikimedia community and the WMF are absolutely on the side of these public domain images remaining in the public domain.
The NPG will be getting radioactive publicity from this. Imagine the NPG being known to American tourists as somewhere that sues Americans just because it thinks it can.
Re: (Score:2)
False. Wikipedia doesn't do "for Wikipedia" licensing, and can't - its mission is to make reusable content.
Doesn't publishing things that are in copyright in parts of the world go against this? Anyone who copies the pictures off Wikipedia in the UK, now, will be committing copyright infringement. It makes Wikipedia a lot less useful if you don't know whether it's legal to copy images from it, even with attribution.
The real question is whether the NPG would have been willing to CC license these if Wikimedia's foundations first action had been to ask, rather than copy without permission.
The NPG will be getting radioactive publicity from this. Imagine the NPG being known to American tourists as somewhere that sues Americans just because it thinks it can.
Perhaps you're not aware
Re: (Score:2)
The NPG does not "lock up culture". It's a *public* gallery with *no admission charge*. The images of all the works are already *freely* and publicly viewable online. The collections are made available nationally and globally by means of touring exhibitions. Why does Wikipedia need to surreptitiously and illegally obtain high res versions?
As to reputation, it has nothing to do with the person's nationality. Imagine Wikimedia being known as an entity that disregards, undermines and damages the world's f
Sue and be subject to radioactive publicity (Score:5, Informative)
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 [wikipedia.org]. 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 [wikimedia.org]. 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 [wikipedia.org].
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 [wikipedia.org] — the V&A [wikipedia.org] 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 [npg.org.uk] 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 (Score:5, Informative)
"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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it's worth mentioning that the US's DMCA doesn't discriminate as to the *purpose* of circumvention of copy protection, the *act* of circumvention is in itself an offence (the merits of this approach are clearly debatable, but that is the US law as it stands. It even applies to /. posters).
In the UK if the legislation is in respect of circumvention *only* for the purpose of copying copyrighted works then the UK law has been broken, because under UK law these reproductions *are* copyrighted. So wheth
"the NPG's taxpayer-funded mission" (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
No (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thanks for the links, I will take a look.
My real objection here isn't so much to the principle of their claiming copyright on their images - whilst I wish the law was more permissive I can sort-of see their point.
The problem, to my mind, is that they also have physical possession of the works and so can control other reproductions. I imagine they prohibit photography, along with a lot of galleries. Note that I haven't verified this, so it could be a baseless accusation.
But restricting competing reproducti
Heart of the global nature of the internet (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Heart of the global nature of the internet (Score:5, Insightful)
QED no crime was committed.
But wait - I seem to remember hearing of some Australian chap who was extradited and tried (and found guilty) in the US, where his internet related activities were illegal, despite being an Australian citizen and having not committed a crime in Australia.
It's not as "QED" as you think it may be.
I got one of these letters in 2004. (Score:4, Informative)
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 [wikipedia.org] 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?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
IANAL - b
Bridgeman vs. Corel (Score:4, Informative)
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.
No; it's not the collection. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but that does not mean that the photographs (a derivative work) are automatically in the public domain - in the US, yes, they are. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
here on wikileaks we have details of covert military operations, evidence that the conspiracy theories are true and (particularly risky, this) photos of paintings from the 1790s.
i mean, wtf?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's long since been established that images which can individually not be copyrighted, can be copyrighted as part of a collection.
The originality required for copyright lies within establishing the collection.
The individual images from such a collection may still be freely copied, but one cannot take the entire collection and present them to the public as a singular collection.
It's kind of like how copyright can
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.)