[Foundation-l] About that "sue and be damned" to the National Portrait Gallery ...

[Andrew Lih]

On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Thomas Dalton<thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/7/11 Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com>:
>>>> This is where in the US, Bridgeman v Corel established that a
>>>> "slavish" reproduction of a PD work does not constitute a new work
>>>> that can be  protected by copyright.
>>>
>>> We know that isn't the case under UK law, the question is whether the
>>> photographs involved substantial investment of resources.
>>
>> No we don't.  The specific matter at hand has never been in front of a
>> court. It's just not clear cut, but it wasn't in the US prior to
>> bridgeman either.
>
> I don't know if there is precise precedent, but from what I've read I
> think most people agree that "sweat of the brow" is, at least in some
> cases, enough under UK law.

I suppose we'd need a humidity reading from the room in which the
photos were taken.

-Andrew