-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Fastfission wrote:
Well, the UK is a place in particular where the issue raised in Bridgman v. Corel has not been ironed out one way or another.
Hmm. Possibly. The relevant sections [0] of the CDPA[1] are quite clear[2], so the question is whether they are applicable:
| 1. (1) Copyright is a property right which subsists in accordance with | this Part in the following descriptions of work? | | (a) original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works,
[...]
| 4. (1) In this Part "artistic work" means? | | (a) a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, | irrespective of artistic quality, [...] | (c) a work of artistic craftsmanship.
It is, AIUI, this last part, s. 4(1)(c), that museums claim mean that anyone taking a photograph of a painting (or whatever) has used his "artistic craftsmanship" to do so; the "mechanical reproduction" argument of Bridgman v. Corel could arguably be discounted by the reference to it being "irrespective of artistic quality" - a perfect reproduction has on its own no artistic quality to speak of, merely that of the original (which is probably quite high, or the photographer wouldn't have bothered, Ms. Tracey Emin's oeuvre aside[3]).
[0] - Sections under Crown Copyright, reproduced under s.29 (or perhaps s.30, if one were to be kind about the worth of my words). [1] - That is, the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_1.htm. [2] - Well, they are to my eye, though perhaps I'm a tad odd. OK, make that "very odd". :-) [3] - My apologies (and deepest sympathies) to any fans of Ms. Emin.
Yours sincerely, - -- James D. Forrester Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] E-Mail : james@jdforrester.org IM (MSN) : jamesdforrester@hotmail.com