On 11/07/2009, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I imagine the user in question has no choice but the
fight the case,
since he doesn't have the power to fix the alleged infringement (the
commons community may decide to remove them, but our community tends
to be of the opinion that we shouldn't bow down to such legal threats,
especially under non-US law). I don't know as much about UK copyright
law as perhaps I should, given my choice of hobby and my location, but
I would be surprised if there was enough creativity or work involved
in taking a photograph of a painting for it to be independently
copyrightable.
It gets better: the editor they sent the threat to is an American.
So, to recap: A UK organisation is threatening an American with legal
action over what is unambiguously, in established US law, not a
copyright violation of any sort.
I can't see this ending well for the NPG.
In contrast, we have the V&A, who - gasp! - realise that spreading
their name and exhibits far and wide (Wikipedia Loves Art) is much
more likely to get them money and fame than will breathtakingly odious
claims of copyright over works hundreds of years old.
Really. Is there anyone sane at the NPG? Do they really expect to
successfully sue an American over an action that's unambiguously legal
in America?
- d.