4 ms·
This doesn't seem like it should be true, even if they claim it. " In 2019, the European Union adopted the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market.
by Quarrel 6y ago
This doesn't seem like it should be true, even if they claim it.
"
In 2019, the European Union adopted the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. Article 14 of the directive states that reproductions of works of visual art that are in the public domain cannot be subject to copyright or related rights, unless the reproduction is an original creative work
"
and on the digitisation of those:
"
UK Intellectual Property Office confirmed that digital reproductions of public domain images are not protected by copyright, arguing that "according to the Court of Justice of the European Union which has effect in UK law, copyright can only subsist in subject matter that is original in the sense that it is the author's own "intellectual creation". Given this criterion, it seems unlikely that what is merely a retouched, digitised image of an older work can be considered as "original"."
"
Presumably works from the early 19th C are out of copyright?
That said, I am all for supporting the BM- it is an amazing institution..
- abetusk 6y agoThis gets into murky territory and I'm not sure claiming their pictures are in the public domain would hold up in court. This is common practice for museums so I suspect there's precedent in their copyright claims. I would imagine that they would argue that providing digital artifacts in the form of high resolution images or other media (3d scans, say) constitutes enough of an alteration from the original work so as to fall under copyright. If anyone has any more information on precedent, court cases or the like, I would like to see it.
- cma 6y agoIsn't higher resolution less of an alteration?
- bhickey 6y agoI'm unfamiliar with UK law, but it's unlikely that these faithful reproductions enjoy any protection in the US. Many American museums are simply engaged in wholesale copyfraud. Bridgeman v. Corel, SDNY https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/25/421/2325910/ https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/... Meshwerks v. Toyota, 10th circuit https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-meshwerks-inc-v-toyota-motor-sales-u-s-a https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-m...
- abetusk 6y agoVery interesting! The Bridgeman v. Corel looks to be a straight up case of taking pictures of public domain work and then trying to resell. It looks like the courts judged in favor of keeping it public domain, so that's great news. In the case of Meshwerks v. Toyota, this is not so straight forward. From what I gather, Meshwerks was hired to 3d scan the body of a Toyota prototype car and then Meshwerks turned around and sued Toyota when Toyota used the 3d scan for something or other. The court ruled in favor of Toyota but the claim is that Meshwerks claim to copyright was invalid because the 3d scan was based on "... designs the automobile manufacturer produced, so they were not original works of art that could be copyrighted, and because there was no valid copyright, there could be no infringement." So this is different from 3d scanning a piece of art, as the sculpture might fall under copyright, say. The Meshwerks v. Toyota was dismissed because, as I read it, engineering artifacts like the body of a Toyota are not considered art and therefor not copyrightable. EDIT: Looking at robin_reala's comment [1] linking to the UK's "sweat of the brow" doctrine [2], it looks like your take on copyfraud extends to museums in the UK as well. From the Wikipedia entry: > In a copyright notice ... the UK Intellectual Property Office confirmed that digital reproductions of public domain images are not protected by copyright ... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24553116 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24553116 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow#United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow#United_Kingd...