4 ms·

> Firstly, they claimed that the photographs were still under copyright. Note that you can in some cases copyright the digitisation of out-of-copyright photos,

> Firstly, they claimed that the photographs were still under copyright. Note that you can in some cases copyright the digitisation of out-of-copyright photos, if there is intellectual creation involved in their restoration or touching up. Simply removing blemishes ins't enough, but I don't know what they did in this case.

Animats 4y ago
Note that you can in some cases copyright the digitisation of out-of-copyright photos No. See Bridgeman vs. Corel. That was settled years ago.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  > No. See Bridgeman vs. Corel. That was settled years ago. That's a US judgement. Both of the organisations in this case are British. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.#Relevance_to_UK_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel... > As a US court case, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. is not binding upon UK courts. And the UK government has a different opinion, which matches what I said. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/copyright-notice-digital-images-photographs-and-the-internet/copyright-notice-digital-images-photographs-and-the-internet https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/copyright-notice-... > However, there is a degree of uncertainty regarding whether copyright can exist in digitised copies of older images for which copyright has expired.
  - Animats 4y ago
    That continues: "However, according to established case law, the courts have said that 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’." There has been a huge attempt by Bridgeman and others to create FUD in this area. It didn't work. Partly because Wikipedia is willing to go to court if necessary.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Portrait_Gallery_and_Wikimedia_Foundation_copyright_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Portrait_Gallery_and_...
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      ...that's literally what I already said though? > if there is intellectual creation involved in their restoration or touching up Bizarre how people come in saying 'no.' with a big full stop, give a confused precedent from an entirely different country and legal system, then quote from links I gave them that paraphrase what I said and make it clear that it isn't a simple 'no.' or 'settled' like they said it was.
      - noptd 4y ago
        >you can in some cases copyright the digitisation of out-of-copyright photos I don't have an opinion in either direction but it seems unnecessary to criticize the disagreement of others when even your own link refutes your claim, as Animats pointed out above. "Let's not throw stones in glass houses" and such. Are there any examples to cite that support your claim?
        chrisseaton 4y ago
        > when even your own link refutes your claim No it doesn't - it says it's not a settled issue. "No ... settled" vs an actual official UK government website on the subject contradicting with actually there's a "degree of uncertainty". How much of a better source can you get than that?

Animats 4y ago

Note that you can in some cases copyright the digitisation of out-of-copyright photos No. See Bridgeman vs. Corel. That was settled years ago.

chrisseaton 4y ago
> No. See Bridgeman vs. Corel. That was settled years ago. That's a US judgement. Both of the organisations in this case are British. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.#Relevance_to_UK_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel... > As a US court case, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. is not binding upon UK courts. And the UK government has a different opinion, which matches what I said. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/copyright-notice-digital-images-photographs-and-the-internet/copyright-notice-digital-images-photographs-and-the-internet https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/copyright-notice-... > However, there is a degree of uncertainty regarding whether copyright can exist in digitised copies of older images for which copyright has expired.
- Animats 4y ago
  That continues: "However, according to established case law, the courts have said that 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’." There has been a huge attempt by Bridgeman and others to create FUD in this area. It didn't work. Partly because Wikipedia is willing to go to court if necessary.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Portrait_Gallery_and_Wikimedia_Foundation_copyright_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Portrait_Gallery_and_...
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    ...that's literally what I already said though? > if there is intellectual creation involved in their restoration or touching up Bizarre how people come in saying 'no.' with a big full stop, give a confused precedent from an entirely different country and legal system, then quote from links I gave them that paraphrase what I said and make it clear that it isn't a simple 'no.' or 'settled' like they said it was.
    - noptd 4y ago
      >you can in some cases copyright the digitisation of out-of-copyright photos I don't have an opinion in either direction but it seems unnecessary to criticize the disagreement of others when even your own link refutes your claim, as Animats pointed out above. "Let's not throw stones in glass houses" and such. Are there any examples to cite that support your claim?
      - chrisseaton 4y ago
        > when even your own link refutes your claim No it doesn't - it says it's not a settled issue. "No ... settled" vs an actual official UK government website on the subject contradicting with actually there's a "degree of uncertainty". How much of a better source can you get than that?