 |
 |
Hi Nigel. Not wanting to take anything away from David’s well constructed and argued point, the erstwhile captain of England, Leicestershire and Hampshire is David Gower, singular. This message comes from... Ivor Kerslake Former BM photographer and cricket enthusiast. ________________________________________ From: AHFAP, for image professionals in the UK cultural heritage sector [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of cartier bresson [[log in to unmask]] Sent: 04 April 2018 15:46 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Copyright in photography of out-of-copyright artworks. Sir : What a coincidence ! Such an illustrious name ! Parents great cricket fans ? Was captain, then President V&A cricket...N ________________________________ From: AHFAP, for image professionals in the UK cultural heritage sector <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of David Gowers <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Wednesday, April 4, 2018 2:37 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Copyright in photography of out-of-copyright artworks. Dear all, Below is a reply from my colleague Amy Taylor, head of the picture library here at the Ashmolean Museum. It is, in part, a reply to Max Browne’s post but also answers the main questions originally posted. She has many years experience in copyright to do with fine art imaging and I agree with her comments. Copyright is a topic that is much discussed here. The copyright protection created in images is dependent on the level of skill/ effort required to capture the piece – so it is not affected by whether or not the piece itself is in copyright (if it is, it adds another layer of permissions required to be cleared.) Certainly, for properly and skilfully composed- and lit photographs of out-of-copyright works, I would argue the images are protected by UK copyright law (and the work merits a charge) – as they are not ‘slavish’ copies. This is just interpretation, however, as the law is a notoriously grey area and lacks more precise definition. Quick snaps taken with smartphones etc. are probably not protected by copyright, however. Contract law can help to minimise the release of images and create income, but their digital nature means this is increasingly harder to enforce in practice… Amy Taylor. I would also like to add, re the article attached to Max’s post, that free distribution and use of (out of copyright) artwork images is all very well in theory, but who pays for the photography of the artworks in the first place? Only the first person to commission new photography or should that be free too? Who pays for the years of skill and experience needed to faithfully reproduce an oil painting or light a sculpture to it’s best effect, not to mention the (very expensive) professional equipment needed to capture images. Another quote from a BAJ editorial on the same subject (vol XVIII No.1) is - "The Tate has given up on attempts to assert copyright in works of art that are actually out of copyright, and instead asserts that it is now, rather, protecting the copyright of its photographs of those works, defining them as its ‘intellectual property’ (IP) in what is meant to be a nifty sidestep. That cannot, however, avoid the fact that, as we have pointed out in these pages, this is unsound in law, in view of the purely mechanical nature of the image-recording operation.” (my underline) This sort of comment usually comes from people who assume that because they can get a photo on their smart phone that looks ok on a 4 inch screen, photography is a doddle, I would have hoped for more from the editor of the British Art Journal. Although this seems to be a particular bee in his bonnet, he is not alone and I think many curators feel the same. Photography and copyright fees are a valuable income source that helps finance many studios and picture libraries within usually cash strapped institutions, without which much in house professional photography, including scanning of archive material, would not happen. Best wishes, David Gowers. Head of Photography Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. On 29 Mar 2018, at 16:10, Clive Coward <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: Hello everyone. I'm new to this group so please let me introduce myself. I'm Clive Coward and for the last 10 years I've managed Tate Images, the image library of Tate. Prior to this I managed British Museum Images and have worked in Wellcome Images (where I know Richard Everett, AHFAP Chair, from and who pointed me to this group), the Royal Geographical Society and Bridgeman Images. I hope you don’t mind but 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. Given the current climate; Brexit, free images being supplied by European galleries and museums, the reduced funding for art-history publishing etc. I thought it would be good to hear from the professionals who create this photography in the first place. So if you don’t mind… 1) Do you regard the photography you create of out-of-copyright artworks as being protected under UK Copyright Law? 2) Do you think UK Copyright Law is clear enough on this matter? 3) Do you think the photography of out-of-copyright artworks is protected under some other law, for example contract law? 4) Do you support the charging of fees for the reuse of the photography? It would be greatly appreciated if you could send your thoughts by April 13th. Thank you and Happy Easter Clive Coward Tate Images Manager. David Gowers Heard of Photography [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> T+44 (0)1865 278048 Ashmolean Museum of Art and Archaeology University of Oxford Beaumont Street Oxford OX1 2PH The Ashmolean - Britain’s first museum - Admission free Open: Tuesday–Sunday 10–5 (closed on Mondays) Information: +44(0)1865 278000 www.ashmolean.org For disclaimer see: http://www.ashmolean.org/email/