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

[Gregory Maxwell]

On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 9:44 PM, Thomas Dalton<thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

No we don't.  The specific matter at hand has never been in front of a
court. It's just not clear cut, but it wasn't in the US prior to
bridgeman either.

Moreover, Bridgman was also decided the same way under UK law by the
US court. While this isn't binding, and may be bunk it does say that
someone of nontrivial (although foreign) legal expertise studied the
issue carefully and reached a differing opinion.