
UK's National Portrait Gallery Threatens To Sue Wikipedia User - gasull
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/07/11/1239244/UKs-National-Portrait-Gallery-Threatens-To-Sue-Wikipedia-User?from=rss
======
embeddedradical
summary: user uploaded photos of public domain works, and the impression i get
from comments on slashdot, is that in the uk they'd have a case because the
photos are copyright of photographer but since this is a US user and US
servers, the user will be fine due to Corel v Bridgeman
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corel_v._Bridgeman>) which decided that photos
of public domain stuff is not copyrighted.

looks as if things are going to be k.

~~~
gaius
If you want a public domain photo of a public domain artwork, then take such a
photo yourself and assign it to the public domain. Simple.

~~~
weavejester
Which is why galleries in the UK usually forbid photography.

~~~
gaius
_Flash_ photography, as they are worried about the cumulative effect of
millions of flashes per year damaging the pigments, same as leaving the
painting out in the sun would.

~~~
tiktipa
/All/ photography in the National Portrait Gallery in London is forbidden,
with or without flash. They are worried about losing control on works where
copyright has already expired.

[http://www.npg.org.uk/about/FAQ/do-you-allow-photography-
in-...](http://www.npg.org.uk/about/FAQ/do-you-allow-photography-in-the-
gallery.php) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud>

------
anigbrowl
[http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Dcoetzee/NPG_legal_th...](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Dcoetzee/NPG_legal_threat)
is the full letter. I hope this goes to court. I'm really looking forward to
seeing how they intend to argue that copyright extends to documentary copies
of public domain work.

~~~
fauigerzigerk
Public domain work published by a government funded institution.

~~~
cstross
Your US-centric assumptions are faulty in the UK legal context; stuff funded
by the government isn't public domain, it's Crown Copyright.

~~~
fauigerzigerk
I didn't say that it was in the public domain _because_ it was government
funded or that all government funded work is in the public domain. That was
your implication.

------
gort
Putting aside the legal questions, the Wikimedia Foundation's moral position
appears to be this:

[http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD...](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-
Art_tag#Why_do_we_allow_the_.7B.7BPD-
Art.7D.7D_tag_to_be_used_for_photographs_from_any_country.3F)

~~~
ZeroGravitas
I was going to post the same link but for the subtleties of the wikimedia
policy, e.g. Photos of coins aren't public domain but flatbed scans are.

