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

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/7/11 Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com>:
>>> 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.

I don't know if there is precise precedent, but from what I've read I
think most people agree that "sweat of the brow" is, at least in some
cases, enough under UK law.