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

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/7/11 Andrew Lih <andrew.lih at gmail.com>:
> Yes, and the letter from NPG seems to assert that:
>
> "...we can confirm that every one of the images that you have copied
> is the product of a painstaking exercise on the part of the
> photographer that created the image in which significant time, skill,
> effort and artistry have been employed and that there can therefore be
> no doubt that under UK law all of those images are copyright works
> under s.1(1)(a) of the CDPA"
>
> This is where in the US, Bridgeman v Corel established that a
> "slavish" reproduction of a PD work does not constitute a new work
> that can be  protected by copyright.

We know that isn't the case under UK law, the question is whether the
photographs involved substantial investment of resources.