-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Ray Saintonge wrote:
My apologies for not being familiar with Ms. Emin.
Don't be upset. Be thankful. ;-)
The way I would read "irrespective of artistic quality" it is to protect even bad artists. This allows the drawings of a 3-year old to be protected, and prevents the argument that something is not good enough to be protected.
That, certainly, is the way I wish it to be read. Wishes don't make fact, though.
An interesting case would be over copyrights on the paintings by the elephants in the San Diego Zoo. Would an elephant be capable of exercising artistic craftsmanship?
I'd imagine that the animals would be treated in much the same way as minors would be (except that they would never "grow up" to take over ownership), and the creations would be considered as the creations of the responsible adults (keepers? owners?).
The fact that the Bridgeman v. Corel situation has not been ironed out in Britain cannot be taken as support for either side of the argument. Subsection 4(c) at first strikes me as a redundancy unless it can be taken to apply prospectively to other formats that are not specified in (a) or (b). I think that any photograph that we may be considering would pass the test in section 4, but it must still pass the originality test specified in paragraph 1(1)(a).
Possibly.
BTW does this copy of the Act include amendments since 1988? I see that it still shows copyright duration as being life + 50. Why have I misunderstood that it would be life + 70?
The Patents Office has a "consolidated" 252-page PDF of the Act and all of the subsequent modifications[0], which lists 37(!) Acts and Statutory Instruments which have modified it, including the "Duration of Copyright and Rights in Performances Regulations 1995, SI 1995/3297", which did indeed modify the Act from 50 to 70 years after death for artistic works (sound recordings are still at 50, though, which is why Elvis's back catalogue is rapidly entering the public domain.
In any event given the fuss that the museums of Britain have been making over this issue, it is amazing that there would be no British court decision on this.
Not really; it would be quite astoundingly bad press to be seen to be "stealing" from a museum (remembering that essentially all museums are charities, open to the public for free[1], and that the British press love nothing better than to savage the party seen to be attacking the "underdog", which any charity would surely be). Also, we British aren't as litigious as our cousins, which "helps".
It would, of course, be up to them to initiate any infringement proceedings. In the absence of such proceedings they have an infinite capacity to roar like paper tigers for as long as people are willing to take that roar seriously.
Agreed, up to a point.
Unfortunately, as Wikipedia gets bigger it becomes less courageous in taking on these ruffians, because it has assets that it could lose.
Now that the Wikimedia Foundation exists, its Board has a legal duty to avoid any action that might result in harm to its long term ability to exist, of course.
It would be helpful to have a litigation-proofed organization that operates at arms length to Wikipedia, and that could openly inspire the museums into taking legal action.
We've had the same concerns in starting Wikimedia UK; though we'd love to see some case law in our favour, we really can't be the ones involved in the case.
[0] - http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/legislation/legislation.pdf [1] - Free at the point of use; funded through both taxes and donations.
Yours, - -- James D. Forrester Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] E-Mail : james@jdforrester.org IM (MSN) : jamesdforrester@hotmail.com