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

Thu Aug 5 16:59:30 UTC 2004

Caroline Ford wrote:

>http://www.mda.org.uk/mcopyg/bridge.htm
>
>  
>
That appears to be self-serving opinion. Nothing there adds much to the 
legal arguments.  I agree that Bridgeman v. Corel is not binding in the 
UK, but it appears that the judge did at least take UK law into account.

They put some stock on the need to have the interests of museums 
represented or to look for alternative protective means suggests that 
museums are very worried about the way the debate is going.

They acknowledge that there are no serious commercial ventures 
attempting to "undermine the position of museums".  I have not looked at 
the provisions in UK copyright law that govern what can be recovered in 
the case of a legally acknowledged infringement.  I do understand, 
however, that in the US, unless the copyright is properly registered, 
the damages are limited to a forfeiture of profits.  They may be 
comforted in this by knowing that our level of profit is very easily 
calculated.

The applicability of the UK law relating to two and three dimensional 
works is not relevant, or may even help our case.  Camera angles may 
provide some originality in the case of a photograph of a sculpture; 
this seems to dispel that.  In any event, if things become serious we 
should be willing to suspend any arguments that relate to pictures of 
sculptures until the principle issue is settled.

I found their last sentence to be particularly intriguing. "Museums are 
also concerned that unauthorised copying will undermine the quality and 
integrity of image reproduction."  It has no legal importance.  At the 
same time it suggests that a serious debate about the role of museums in 
society, and the associated funding responsibilities, needs to be 
undertaken.

Ec