On 05/07/05, Haukur Þorgeirsson <haukurth(a)hi.is> wrote: IANAL, but I'm sitting in a UK law library just now... ... Reading through "The Modern Law of Copyright and Designs" (a wonderful book, which keeps quoting poetry at unexpected moments) [1], we find that copyright in a photograph requires it to be both original and artistic. Artistic, however, is explicitly defined - any photograph is considered to be artistic irrespective of nature. So, original. (3.37) "It is clear, first, that the mere fact that the work is in part derived from antedecent material does not deny it originality; a drawing of St. Pauls cathedral may be copyright even one might say most of the credit ought to go to Sir Christopher Wren." (3.56) "Originality presupposes the exercise of substantial independent skill, labour, judgement and so forth. For this reason it is submitted that a person who makes a photograph merely [a footnote here emphasises "merely"] by placing a drawing or painting on the glass of a photocopying machine and pressing the button gets no copyright at all, but he might get a copyright if he employed skill and labour in assembling the thing to be photographed, as where he made a montage." So, photocopying Magna Carta [2] doesn't give me a copyright over the end product, but photographing Magna Carta artistically displayed with a selection of other historical artifacts from the c13th would. No problems there. (3.56 again) "It will be evident that in photography there is room for originality in three respects. First, there is originality ... which resides in such specialities as angle of shot, light and shade, exposure, effects obtained by means of filters, developing techniques etc. ... Secondly, there may be creation of the scene or subject to be photographed. We have already mentioned photo-montage, but a more common instance would be arrangement or posing of a group; this might also involve work in setting up or controlling the illumination of the subject to be photographed. Thirdly, a person may create a worthwhile photograph by being at the right place at the right time." The third coverage, whilst v. important for news photographs, is not relevant here. It comes down to the first two. We can assume that the original photograph was made by a professional, that it was planned to some degree, the material was handled carefully, &c. This allows us to say, as a result, that originality probably subsists in the first part - the "artistic" section, as it were. The photograph, as described, is not just of the book; it is of "the book, framed by a ruler and colour scale". This is *certainly* covered under the second part. The existence of a colour scale implies a technical attention to detail sufficient to class as "skill, labour, &c."; it's not a hurriedly tossed-off snap by someone with a Polaroid. So, yeah. This is almost certainly covered by that copyright, which as far as I can tell would then subsist in the British Library - it's an original work under British copyright law. I hope this has been clear. If not, please let me know and I'll teach myself some more and then explain it again... Oh, and the obvious follow-on question - can we use it in the UK under fair dealing? No. I have wondered about this - recently we've started having servers in France, and elsewhere, if memory serves. Does this then require simultaneous compliance with French law? -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk [1] When 'Omer smote 'is bloomin' lyre, He'd 'eard men sing by land an' sea; An' what he thought 'e might require, 'E went an' took—the same as me! - it seemed appropriate... [2] Erp. The thought alone of what the National Archives would do to me for contemplating that sort of copying...