Some more blogs (including the one I mentioned in the last post):
http://lawclanger.blogspot.com/2009/07/its-not-often-that-copyright-cases-ge...
http://www.technollama.co.uk/national-portrait-gallery-copyright-row
http://www.francisdavey.co.uk/2009/07/national-portrait-gallery-photographs....
http://blog.frankwales.com/2009/07/20/for-the-public-good/
One point I want to pick up from that last one.
In the comments, the blog author says:
"Dover Books has built a business that includes reprinting out-of-copyright music scores. I have several of their books, such as a volume of Brahms’s symphonies. But anyone else is able to publish this same material, and it’s perfectly legal to download those same Brahms scores from the International Music Score Library Project. That this is so hasn’t prevented Dover from being able to sustain their business model."
That is an incorrect analogy.
The equivalents here would be:
*"Download PD images from Commons" vs "download those same Brahms scores from the International Music Score Library Project"
*"Buy book from the NPG shop" vs buy "volume of Brahms’s symphonies" from Dover Books
*"Download NPG images and upload to Commons" vs "walk into Dover Books offices and copy the manuscripts of their books and then print your own copies of the books and give them away for free"
*"Pay tens of thousands of pounds for professional scans of NPG pictures" vs "pay professional orchestra to perform Brahms's symphonies and record them and sell the result
To my mind, the difference between a bog-standard point-and-click photograph of a work of art and a detailed, archival scan, done in such detail, and with care and due attention to lighting to capture the essence of the work of art, is the difference between a mere copy of a musical score, and the performance of that score by an orchestra.
Admittedly, the analogy might be being stretched to breaking point here.
But the blogs are good, so do read those!
Carcharoth