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...
O *frabjous* day! Callooh! Callay!
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
Excellent news. Thanks for sharing Andy.
Best Lucy
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
The copyright point came up at a recent training event I attended. It is good that there is now solid UK case law to support our way.
For the technical obstructions sometimes put in place of downloading, I suppose it would take statute law to shift those.
Charles
On 29/12/2023 21:19 GMT Lucy Crompton-Reid lucy.crompton-reid@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Excellent news. Thanks for sharing Andy.
Best Lucy
On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 at 19:57, Andy Mabbett <andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk mailto: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-prevent-uk-museums-from-charging-reproduction-feesat-last-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org mailto:wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
-- Lucy Crompton-Reid Chief Executive _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
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
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
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?
It doesn't need to. It clarifies the conditions under which a copyright is created; the subject matter is immaterial.
See paragraphs 14-16 ("The Law"), in particular:
"What is required [for copyright to exist] is that the author was able to express their creative abilities in the production of the work by making free and creative choices so as to stamp the work created with their personal touch [...] This criterion is not satisfied where the content of the work is dictated by technical considerations, rules or other constraints which leave no room for creative freedom"
Re: "It is certainly strange to me that some cultural organisations pursue image licensing as a loss making venture that also borders on copyfraud..."
I'm hoping that museums will still want to spend money on digitising their content. But we need to be realistic, if they can't subsidise that by getting at least some of the money back from image licensing, they may do less of it.
Of course rumour has it that some institutions weren't even getting as much from image licencing as it cost them to market and sell those images. My hope is that fewer institutions will think of digitisation in terms of fundraising and more in terms of fulfilling their mission of preserving and recording their collection and making their collections available to all.
But my fear is that there will be more items that can only be seen if visited and the only available images are photos of the painting on mugs and jigsaws from the museum shop.
Jonathan
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 at 14:39, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
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?
It doesn't need to. It clarifies the conditions under which a copyright is created; the subject matter is immaterial.
See paragraphs 14-16 ("The Law"), in particular:
"What is required [for copyright to exist] is that the author was able to express their creative abilities in the production of the work by making free and creative choices so as to stamp the work created with their personal touch [...] This criterion is not satisfied where the content of the work is dictated by technical considerations, rules or other constraints which leave no room for creative freedom" _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Completely agree Jonathan. Let's hope that your more positive scenario is the one that happens - it's certainly what we (and I know many others, including your good self) advocate to the sector. Best, Lucy
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 at 11:10, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:
Re: "It is certainly strange to me that some cultural organisations pursue image licensing as a loss making venture that also borders on copyfraud..."
I'm hoping that museums will still want to spend money on digitising their content. But we need to be realistic, if they can't subsidise that by getting at least some of the money back from image licensing, they may do less of it.
Of course rumour has it that some institutions weren't even getting as much from image licencing as it cost them to market and sell those images. My hope is that fewer institutions will think of digitisation in terms of fundraising and more in terms of fulfilling their mission of preserving and recording their collection and making their collections available to all.
But my fear is that there will be more items that can only be seen if visited and the only available images are photos of the painting on mugs and jigsaws from the museum shop.
Jonathan
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 at 14:39, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
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?
It doesn't need to. It clarifies the conditions under which a copyright is created; the subject matter is immaterial.
See paragraphs 14-16 ("The Law"), in particular:
"What is required [for copyright to exist] is that the author was able to express their creative abilities in the production of the work by making free and creative choices so as to stamp the work created with their personal touch [...] This criterion is not satisfied where the content of the work is dictated by technical considerations, rules or other constraints which leave no room for creative freedom" _______________________________________________ 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
I think one of the biggest misunderstandings is that museums etc think they *can't* sell merchandise if they don't own copyright.
One of the things WMUK could help with when talking to institutions is explaining that they can still put the photo on a mug or a postcard in the gift shop. (And if they host Wikipedians for a day they'll probably sell some! I always buy something in a museum gift shop just to support the museum.)
Harry
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024, 11:15 Lucy Crompton-Reid, < lucy.crompton-reid@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
Completely agree Jonathan. Let's hope that your more positive scenario is the one that happens - it's certainly what we (and I know many others, including your good self) advocate to the sector. Best, Lucy
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 at 11:10, WereSpielChequers < werespielchequers@gmail.com> wrote:
Re: "It is certainly strange to me that some cultural organisations pursue image licensing as a loss making venture that also borders on copyfraud..."
I'm hoping that museums will still want to spend money on digitising their content. But we need to be realistic, if they can't subsidise that by getting at least some of the money back from image licensing, they may do less of it.
Of course rumour has it that some institutions weren't even getting as much from image licencing as it cost them to market and sell those images. My hope is that fewer institutions will think of digitisation in terms of fundraising and more in terms of fulfilling their mission of preserving and recording their collection and making their collections available to all.
But my fear is that there will be more items that can only be seen if visited and the only available images are photos of the painting on mugs and jigsaws from the museum shop.
Jonathan
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 at 14:39, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
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?
It doesn't need to. It clarifies the conditions under which a copyright is created; the subject matter is immaterial.
See paragraphs 14-16 ("The Law"), in particular:
"What is required [for copyright to exist] is that the author was able to express their creative abilities in the production of the work by making free and creative choices so as to stamp the work created with their personal touch [...] This criterion is not satisfied where the content of the work is dictated by technical considerations, rules or other constraints which leave no room for creative freedom" _______________________________________________ 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
-- Lucy Crompton-Reid Chief Executive _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 at 11:09, WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com wrote:
Of course rumour has it that some institutions weren't even getting as much from image licencing as it cost them to market and sell those images.
On the contrary; it's been confirmed by several institutions themselves, in response to FoI requests.
Conversely, there is no hard evidence of any institution making a significant profit from such licensing, much less then investing it in digitisation.
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org