It is certainly strange to me that some cultural organisations pursue image licensing as a loss making venture that also borders on copyfraud...
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 at 09:39, Deryck Chan deryckchan@gmail.com wrote:
I'm slightly confused by the article. It refers to THJ vs Sheridan (2023) but that ruling was about software-generated graphs and said nothing about reproducing out-of-copyright content?
On a separate note, I found this comment intriguing:
Since I have also established, through a Freedom of Information request, that the National Gallery has been losing money on its image licensing operation, hopefully it will embrace this chance to abolish image fees altogether. Then the gallery, art historians and the public, will be practically, legally, culturally and financially better off.
Wow.
--Deryck
On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 at 19:57, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
A recent Court of Appeal (England and Wales) case has clarified that there is no new copyright in photographs reproducing 2D artworks that are themselves in the public domain - and that (as many of us have argued) this has been the case since at least 2009.
https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2023/12/29/court-of-appeal-ruling-will-preve...
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk