My understanding from museum and gallery folks is that the photography is a creative act. This is substantiated by the variations that are possible in the representation of the object (if only variations of intensity and hue). In the case of the page with the ruler and scale, the placing of those elements is a matter of selection so the image involves demonstrable creativity. So, the image depicted on the page of the book is out of copyright but any reproduction of that image can be copyright. Most museums have a fiduciary duty to their trustees to protect the assets of the museum; this includes intellectual property.
Theo
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 09:50:15 +0100, James D. Forrester wrote:
Alphax wrote:
Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
Look at this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LindisfarneFol27rIncipitMatt.jpg
You'll see that there's a link to the British Library page from which the image was snatched. Following that link you'll see that the British Library claims copyright on the image. As far as I know this may well hold up under British law (evil as that would be).
The photograph is of a book over 1000 years old, so the art itself is in the public domain. The photograph on the library website is of the book, framed by a ruler and colour scale. And then, a nice little " Copyright © The British Library" down the bottom. Now AFAICT (and IANAL), there is nothing creative about that photograph. I find their claim of copyright spurious, to say the least.
First off, I should point out that I, too, am not a lawyer. :-)
A great many^W^Wall museums in the United Kingdom seen to operate (and instruct their lawyers to do so, too) under the belief that the copyright laws are suspended, and perpetual copyright reigns forth in its place, on images of any and all objects owned by the institution. It seems to work like this:
* You can see what we show for free. (This has nothing to do with copyright law, just Arts Council rules.) * But you can't take pictures, because we say so. (This is a by-law thing, and has nothing to do with copyright law.) * When the museum has photographs taken, this is quite a business. (This is logistics, and has nothing to do with copyright law.) * The photographs are made using the museum's money, staff, and time. (This is irrelevant to copyright law; what counts is.)
Thus, the only way of getting a photograph of an object owned by a museum is through 'piggy-backing' on the money and time that the museum has spent; they feel that, because of this, they should be entitled to money for each viewing, or whatever.
To the best of my knowledge, this desire for recompense does not seem to be borne out in law[*]. I would be grateful for a correction by anyone more knowledgeable than me, especially one from a museum which practices this principle.
[*] - The relevant law is the Copyright, Designs And Patents Act 1988, http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_1.htm
Yours sincerely,