[WikiEN-l] Re: [Wikipedia-l] [bhorrocks at npg.org.uk: National Portrait Gallery images on Wikipedia website]

Thu Aug 5 08:29:23 UTC 2004

IMO, a very self-serving 'opinion' in that piece of work.  The author
is playing to his audience.  Note that lawyers generally give their
clients or prospective clients a legal opinion they'll like.

They go on at length about how much skill goes into making a digital
reproduction of an artwork, and I can't argue with that, it might
indeed.  But skill is not what gets you copyright protection. 
Creativity is.

And creativity is exactly what you do NOT want in making a digital
version of an artwork.  Instead, the process should be as
'transparent' as possible.  Copying is all about making as exact a
likeness as possible; a personal touch is in fact what the copier is
trying hard to avoid.

In fact, the flaw in their reasoning is quite easily demonstrated in
this: how can they even determine WHICH copyright you're infringing? 
Unless they've only allowed one reproduction of the artwork ever, then
multiple copies exist.  If they are trying to sue over this supposed
subsidiary 'copying' copyright, then they MUST identify which
copyright you're infringing - after all, you're not infringing
copyright on the original, out-of-copyright work!

Which is why, probably, the individual from the NPG was so interested
in where we got the images from.  Without that information, a legal
case would be impossible.

-Matt (User:Morven)