[Foundation-l] About that "sue and be damned" to the National Portrait Gallery ...

[Thomas Dalton]

The UK Intellectual Property Office (http://www.ipo.gov.uk) says:

"A work can only be original if it is the result of independent
creative effort. It will not be original if it has been copied from
something that already exists. If it is similar to something that
already exists but there has been no copying from the existing work
either directly or indirectly, then it may be original.

The term "original" also involves a test of substantiality - literary,
dramatic, musical and artistic works will not be original if there has
not been sufficient skill and labour expended in their creation. But,
sometimes significant investment of resources without significant
intellectual input can still count as sufficient skill and labour."

That's the relevant bit of law. Is the intellectual input and
investment of resources involved in taking such a photograph
"substantial"?