Exactly; and he's hoping we name someone we got them from that he CAN sue.

Out of curiousity; does anyone know the status under English law of this type of thing? There is US case law saying that a mere photographic reproduction of a public-domain artwork does not have sufficient expressive / creative content to create a new copyright claim. However, this may not be true worldwide.

One must be aware that owners of artworks (such as the NPG) routinely claim rights under copyright law that they do not have, or at least are based on readings of copyright law that currently have no actual cases to back them up.

-Matt

Geoff Burling wrote:

IMHO, the whole matter couldn't be any more in a mess than it currently is.

My catalog for the Tate was written by them & is copyrighted by this institution, so it is fair to then assume they own the copyright on the works shown. Unless per the case quoted here, the law indicates otherwise.

Each separate item in that catalogue should probably have its own copyright date. Even if we accept the premise that reproductions are copyrightable, it does not permit them to issue a new edition ten years later, and use that as a basis for restarting the clock on material that was already in the older edition.

One interesting case is an anthology of photographs, _Oregon then and Now_, which includes a selection of photographs taken around Oregon in the first decade of the 20th century, with contemporary photos of the same subjects -- a fascinating example of how the local landscape has changed. In this case, there is _no_ copyright notice! Obviously the 100+ year-old photgraphs are PD, yet there is the suggestion that the author wanted to release into the PD his newer photgraphs. (The prudent rule for reuse would be to assume that the author retains copyright on these newer photos pending a clarification from the author.)

Before 1989 US law required a copyright notice. Works issued before that date (assuming that they were not pirate editions) without that notice may be in the public domain. The effect on things published after that is that it generated copyrights that the authors and publishers never even considered.

Scanning these materials for Wikipedia -- & allowing their reuse for one & all -- is a thorny issue!

And I'm not even considering scanning my materials from German museums, as I have no sense what the copyright law is in _that_ country. (Is there a summary of copyright laws for various countries on Wikipedia somewhere?)

The EU generally follows a life plus 70 rule. For quick reference I use the site http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/okbooks.html#whatpd

In considering copyright infringement one also needs to consider the penalty implications. For this one also needs to distinguish also between civil infringements and criminal infringements.

I've just read through some 20 or so sections of the "Criminal Resource Manual" dealing with the issue of Criminal infringement of copyright beginning at http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01840.htm . It would be difficult to sustain a case of criminal infringement for the simple uploading of material. Most notably an important element of such an infringement is that it be "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain", although that provision can be interpreted faitly broadly. It also needs to be noted that, although registration of a copyright is not a prerequisite to owning a copyright, it is a prerequisite before a court can have jurisdiction over a specific infringement.

It is ironic that there is a criminal law provision against making a false copyright notice, but the fine is substantially less than for infringing copyright.

Ec

http://www.mda.org.uk/mcopyg/bridge.htm

IMO, a very self-serving 'opinion' in that piece of work. The author is playing to his audience. Note that lawyers generally give their clients or prospective clients a legal opinion they'll like.

They go on at length about how much skill goes into making a digital reproduction of an artwork, and I can't argue with that, it might indeed. But skill is not what gets you copyright protection. Creativity is.

And creativity is exactly what you do NOT want in making a digital version of an artwork. Instead, the process should be as 'transparent' as possible. Copying is all about making as exact a likeness as possible; a personal touch is in fact what the copier is trying hard to avoid.

In fact, the flaw in their reasoning is quite easily demonstrated in this: how can they even determine WHICH copyright you're infringing? Unless they've only allowed one reproduction of the artwork ever, then multiple copies exist. If they are trying to sue over this supposed subsidiary 'copying' copyright, then they MUST identify which copyright you're infringing - after all, you're not infringing copyright on the original, out-of-copyright work!

Which is why, probably, the individual from the NPG was so interested in where we got the images from. Without that information, a legal case would be impossible.

-Matt (User:Morven)