New Developments In NPG/Wikipedia Lawsuit Threat 345
Posted
by
timothy
from the I-see-portraits-of-dead-people dept.
from the I-see-portraits-of-dead-people dept.
Raul654 writes "Last week, it was reported that the UK's National Portrait Gallery had threatened a lawsuit against an American Wikipedian for uploading pictures from the NPG's website to Wikipedia. The uploaded pictures are clearly in the public domain in the United States. (In the US, copies of public domain works are also in the public domain. UK law on the matter is unclear.) Since then, there have been several developments: EFF staff attorney Fred von Lohmann has taken on the case pro-bono; Eric Moeller, Wikimedia Foundation Deputy Director, has responded to the NPG's allegations in a post on the WMF blog; and the British Association of Picture Libraries and Agencies has weighed in on the dispute in favor of the NPG."
Globalisation (Score:4, Interesting)
Welcome to globalisation. Laws in the US aren't the same as the ones in the UK. In the UK we don't have fair use laws.
I'm wondering why this is different to the music mess caused by allofmp3; everyone was so upset that the Russians system was different and against "our" laws.
One of a couple of things is going to happen as we continue the Digital Revolution. Either we're going to need a global legal system since all this internet stuff is global, or we're going to have to shut down the internet and make it the "countrynet" so that everything you do is contained in the same legal framework.
Or, head, sand, bury.
Re:Pictures versus digital photos... (Score:3, Interesting)
Quoting from one of TFAs [wikipedia.org] (emphasis mine):
Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), was a
decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, which ruled that exact photographic copies of public domain images could
not be protected by copyright because the copies lack originality. Even if
accurate reproductions require a great deal of skill, experience and effort, the
key element for copyrightability under U.S. law is that copyrighted material
must show sufficient originality.
Re:Globalisation (Score:2, Interesting)
To reword: our fair use law is very restrictive and doesn't allow for commonly considered fair use cases, such as the right to transfer songs to your ipod from CD. The "fair use" laws we have in the UK are designed for the press and for educational use, not the common people.
Music, Movies, Books,.. Museums next (Score:3, Interesting)
Musuems have collected and preserved much of the worlds cultural heritage. But at the same time they severely limit the publics enjoyment of the art and artifacts they seek to preserve.
I enjoy visiting a museum on occasion, but entry prices are usually extremely high and in the time that I have available I can usually only browse the highlights (from a respectul distance that hurts my eyes and blurs any details). Quick browses of paintings that their authors have spend weeks, or months on. You can ofen buy (expensive) books with again the same highlights of the collection, but not on a 1:1 scale.
High res scans would make all of this available to a much wider audience; worldwide, 24-7. Let them store that fragile 400+ year old painting in a secure bunker. Its the painting I am interested in, not the canvas.
Of course this would also make the museum obsolete; and kill off some major tourist attractions -- so expect some resistance from the old guard.
Stealing hi-res versions (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:This isn't a Robin Hood story (Score:4, Interesting)
Just to add some perspective to your comment though, because it doesn't tell the full story, the reason most museums don't do this is because whilst yes, they receive public funding, they also make a small fortune from gift shop sales from visitors or for charging for special exhibitions.
Their argument is that government funding alone does not provide them enough to run top end museums.
I don't know the first thing about their finances, I haven't look into it, but they do have reasonable arguments against doing what you say. Whether their arguments are valid, and whether the reason they need this extra cash is because they're not efficient enough with what they are given I do not know. Certainly in the UK though, most museums I've been too seem to be some of the most well run of all public institutions compared to the jokes that are places like local government and such.
I agree it'd be nice if you could see more on their websites, if more of the information they have was available free digitally, but the truth is we do not know if this is financially viable or not. If they lose visitors in doing it such that they ultimately lose income and can't afford to provide great exhibits in the first place then the idea you suggest is pointless. If however they can do it without detriment then as you say, they should.
NPG = Free Entry (Score:5, Interesting)
The National Portrait Gallery in London (Where the original pictures reside) DOES NOT CHARGE for entrance. I have spent many a wet lunch hour wandering around the Gallery enjoying the artwork.
I sells high quality prints of the Artwork. This is a way of raising funds for the upkeep and towards the purchase of new work.
As an Amateur photographer who has had their work pirated by someone from the USA and realises the futility of trying to stop them from claiming it as their own, I'm with the NPG on this one. Btw, I would have given the pirate a high quality copy of the picture if they had asked for it and agreed that the copyright was mine. Instead, he stole it.
Difficult Case (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm seriously torn here about whether I support the museum or the little guy. I don't think anyone would argue that the original pictures are in the public domain but that isn't what is being shown on Wikipedia, what is getting shown there is a photograph of a public domain work. I think it's fair to argue that a non-trivial amount of work went into taking these photographs and therefore they fall under copyright legislation. If you think it was a trivial amount of work ask yourself how long it took a professional photographer to capture all these shots - I'll bet it ran to at least several weeks of work and probably more (at 20 paintings a day it would be 30 weeks work and I doubt they could do twenty a day).
On the other hand this museum is paid for by the people and presumably the payment to have the photographs taken was also public money. I would say, therefore, that there is a strong argument that these photographs should be in the public domain (at least for residents of the UK). Strengthening the freedom argument, to my mind, is the fact that the museum doesn't allow people to take their own photographs in effect causing a monopoly situation on public works.
Re:NPG = Free Entry (Score:3, Interesting)
Yep, you can fly to london and see the originals. Just like I can fly to NYC or Washington DC or Barcelona or PAris or St Petersbug (Russia) and visit the Museums and other places of interest there. That is what 'tourism' is all about.
Photography is banned in most museums not just the NPG. Flash photography can have a detrimental effect on works of art.
I have photographed in Museums on special open days when you can bring your tripod in and as long as you don't use any artificial light, you can photograph anything you want.
Try doing the same in the US (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyone care to try posting some images from Getty on Wiki....?
http://www.gettyimages.com/Corporate/LicenseInfo.aspx [gettyimages.com]
Low tech solution? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This isn't a Robin Hood story (Score:3, Interesting)
If they lose visitors in doing it such that they ultimately lose income and can't afford to provide great exhibits in the first place then the idea you suggest is pointless. If however they can do it without detriment then as you say, they should.
Maybe I'm unique. However, I'd never consider a virtual tour as a replacement for the real experience. Having digital images available would only encourage me to visit.
I a see reply below your post:
It's not just a matter of putting stuff on their websites. If you go to the NHM Libary, they make you sign a form giving them copyright on your own photographs of public domain material. This is a serious problem.
Some time ago, I had the opportunity to visit BodyWorks. It is a traveling exhibit concerning anatomy. I was very disappointed that photography was not allowed. It made me wonder if they were trying to conceal the low quality of the exhibit at first. Going through the exhibit was rushed. It was a hot environment and water was not allowed. I missed a lot of the exhibit. When people asked me about it latter, I recommend they not attend. Not being allowed to record the event for my personal use and the poor environment left me with a poor impression.
UK Law (Score:2, Interesting)
I believe that most posters are mistating UK law. NPG's statement of the law are very carefully parsed and seem to say only that some photographs of out of copyright works could be copyrightable without actually making statements about protection of slavish copies. In fact their statements are probably true about US law. What is clear under US law, and is unclear but supported by some UK precedent is that a slavish, accurate, faithful copies of a public domain work, that look just like the public domain work (which involves for paintings a difficult, expensive, process) are not copyrightable.
OTOH, the UK does have database protection which protects collections of facts and data even where the underlying data/facts are not protectable or are public domain. US law has nothing like this. The database copyright is designed specifically to protect the sweat of the brow effort in assembling collections data. Further, there can be questions about how the photographs were accessed. I think NPG has a better shot at applying this law as well as some of the other causes of action involving misappropriation of their computer facilities, maybe trespass, etc.
Re:UK Law is not unclear (Score:3, Interesting)
You miss GP's point. The problem isn't that UK will extradite people to Iran (it doesn't). The problem is that UK will extradite people to US, because US demanded that, and a corresponding treaty was signed; however, US will still not extradite people to UK. That's where the hypocrisy is .
There is no policy that "the UK will extradite people to the US" or "the US will not extradite people to the UK". Extradition treaties have all sorts of provisos and lots of executive discretion.
Extradition is not about arrogant countries forcing others to enforce their laws. (At least, no more than any international agreements are coercive.) It's about countries that are friendly and cooperative working together to allow crimes to be prosecuted by the country that was most affected. America doesn't and can't force any country to extradite anyone. I can guarantee you that Iran doesn't extradite to America any more than the reverse.
The UK does not always extradite to the US. Look at David Carruthers [wikipedia.org] or Peter Dicks [wikipedia.org]. Both are UK citizens, whom the US wanted to prosecute for violating US law. How did the US do so? By arresting them when they entered the US. They weren't extradited — probably because the UK would have refused, since they did nothing that was illegal in the UK. By the same token, as far as I know, the UK will not extradite anyone who might be subject to capital punishment.
On the other hand, the US sure does extradite to the UK. We have an extradition treaty [bloomberg.com] that we're required to comply with. If maybe the terms differ between the US and the UK (do they?), well, that's politics for you. When you have to compromise over a range of issues, the result isn't likely going to look perfectly coherent on any specific issue. If the UK was more generous with extradition, it probably got some other concession from the US in exchange.
Re:This isn't a Robin Hood story (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't agree. The paintings are in the public domain. We have the technology to digitalize them. Why can't everybody enjoy good quality copies of something that is part of our culture. Why should a museum be granted monopoly? Because they want so?