[WikiEN-l] Copyright question

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

FT2 wrote:
> I just got curious and read up on Bridgeman vs. Corel. To my complete
> surprise, though heard in the US, it cites UK precedent (Privy Council,
> House of Lords) in forming its opinion -- it is /not/ purely a case based
> upon US law.
>
> It turns out the case was heard under UK law (!). It cites as authorities a
> Privy Council case ruled by the UK Law Lords, *Interlego v Tyco
> Industries*(on which we have an article):
(snip some very interesting stuff, well worth reading from the
parent in this thread)

>
>    Given that Bridgeman has been cited as a purely US based precedent, this
> could be quite a major change in my understanding of the legal position :)
>
>   

Purely on grounds of curiosity (never mind the legal niceties)
personally I would like to know what the photographer who
actually was there in the gallery, pulling the trigger of the
camera for NPG thinks today about all this stuff going on
about the work she/he is/was doing. Did they think they
were engaged in a noble act without revenue streams
flickering in the back of the retinas of the people who
actually hired that photographer for the job. That is, if
one were to even provisionally stipulate, purely arguendo,
that there was even a vanishingly small possibility that the
NPG's case had even a rickety leg to stand on, what would the
view of the "author" whose "creativity" the NPG is claiming to use
as a justification for trying to "Dredd Scott" works already escaped
into PD, "back south" into Copyright Protected dominion, be? Did the
photographer get payed a proper artists dues? Or did they do this "ever
so creative work" in largely conveyor-belt fashion, without much thought
into what it was precisely that they were *reproducing*?


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen