On 29 March 2018 at 16:10, Clive Coward <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I would like to canvas opinions from professional fine art photographers (and
> anyone else) on the matter of the copyright status of the photographs they
> take of out-of-copyright artworks.
Here's a formal notice from the UK's Intelllectual Property Office:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/481194/c-notice-201401.pdf
Which says:
"Simply creating a copy of an image won’t result in a new copyright in
the new item. However, there is a degree of uncertainty regarding
whether copyright can exist in digitised copies of older images for
which copyright has expired. Some people argue that a new copyright
may arise in such copies if specialist skills have been used to
optimise detail, and/or the original image has been touched up to
remove blemishes, stains or creases.
"However, 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 criteria, it seems unlikely that
what is merely a retouched, digitised image of an older work can be
considered as ‘original’. This is because there will generally be
minimal scope for a creator to exercise free and creative choices if
their aim is simply to make a faithful reproduction of an existing
work."
And here is some commentary on it:
https://www.communia-association.org/2015/12/04/1761/
One might also consider the National Portrait Gallery and its abortive
attempt to assert copyright over such images:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Portrait_Gallery_and_Wikimedia_Foundation_copyright_dispute
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
|