Caroline Ford wrote:
That appears to be self-serving opinion. Nothing there adds much to the legal arguments. I agree that Bridgeman v. Corel is not binding in the UK, but it appears that the judge did at least take UK law into account.
They put some stock on the need to have the interests of museums represented or to look for alternative protective means suggests that museums are very worried about the way the debate is going.
They acknowledge that there are no serious commercial ventures attempting to "undermine the position of museums". I have not looked at the provisions in UK copyright law that govern what can be recovered in the case of a legally acknowledged infringement. I do understand, however, that in the US, unless the copyright is properly registered, the damages are limited to a forfeiture of profits. They may be comforted in this by knowing that our level of profit is very easily calculated.
The applicability of the UK law relating to two and three dimensional works is not relevant, or may even help our case. Camera angles may provide some originality in the case of a photograph of a sculpture; this seems to dispel that. In any event, if things become serious we should be willing to suspend any arguments that relate to pictures of sculptures until the principle issue is settled.
I found their last sentence to be particularly intriguing. "Museums are also concerned that unauthorised copying will undermine the quality and integrity of image reproduction." It has no legal importance. At the same time it suggests that a serious debate about the role of museums in society, and the associated funding responsibilities, needs to be undertaken.
Ec