UK Throws A Copyright Crumb: Confirms That Digitized Copies Of Public Domain Images Are In The Public Domain
from the so-what-took-so-long? dept
A couple of weeks ago, Techdirt wrote about a German museum suing Wikimedia over photos of public domain objects that were in its collection. We mentioned there was a related situation in the UK, where the National Portrait Gallery in London had threatened a Wikimedia developer for using photos of objects that were clearly in the public domain. Mike pointed out that in the US, the Bridgeman v. Corel case established that photographs of public domain images do not carry any copyright, since they do not add any new expression. In a rare bit of good news, noted by Communia, the UK Intelllectual Property Office has just announced officially that it takes the same view (pdf):
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.
As that makes clear, even with this latest statement, there is still a measure of uncertainty as to what constitutes an "original" work in this context. Moreover, it's pretty ridiculous that it has taken until 2015 for the UK to accept something as basic and simple as the fact that digitized copies of public domain images remain in the public domain. But as Communia points out, it could be worse:
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.While the IPO’s position supports our conviction that what is in the public domain must stay in the public domain, it is of limited use in countries such as Germany or Spain where institutions can claim exclusive rights over unoriginal reproductions. Remedying this situation requires a further harmonisation of the EU copyright rules -- as proposed by the European parliament earlier this summer when it adopted the Reda report.
We won't know what the European Commission will propose in this area until spring next year. Let's hope it takes note of the UK's new position.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, culture, digitization, eu, public domain, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Abolish Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a photocopy SHOULD create a copyright
That means I should be able to bring a lawsuit against the government for inappropriately using my copyrighted words, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a photocopy SHOULD create a copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
copyrightable derivative work?
No doubt it's a fine line, but the question is, just where is that line?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: copyrightable derivative work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: copyrightable derivative work?
But then what if a high-quality original were to later turn up, showing that the restoration was significantly different from the original (such as assuming that a one-armed man had a second arm in the area of the photo that was destroyed by mold)? Would significant errors in restoration automatically quality it as a derivative work (thus copyrightable) when a good restoration job would have been uncopyrightable, leaving the photo in public domain? Or are all intended restorations - regardless of their degree of inaccuracy or severe artistic liberty - not copyrightable purely due to original (stated) intent of the art? It's an interesting question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: copyrightable derivative work?
The government should at least require that all works get submitted to the library of Congress (or foreign equivalent) for preservation and release once it enters the public domain before granting any copy protection privileges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: copyrightable derivative work?
It's precisely this point that the copyright estoppel doctrine addresses in US: when you claim to have tried hard to discover facts, realities, to picture something existent outside your imaginary, you cannot come back later and claim it wasn't real and have copyright over it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you purchase a designer chair and take a photo of it, according to the new law, you will be in violation of copyright law and that you will be required to have a license to take such a photo, even if you purchase that item legally in a store.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/you-may-soon-need-a-licence-to-take-photos-of-that- classic-designer-chair-you-bought/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The bad news is that instead of waiting 25 years after they were first sold, UK citizens now have to wait life plus 70 years after the death of the designer, before that happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad news for the monkey.
" It is also possible that, in instances where a person has arranged equipment and made artistic decisions prior to taking a photo, but wasn’t the one to press the trigger, the person making the arrangements could own the copyright. An example of this could be where a photographer has made the creative choices in setting up a shot, but got an assistant to actually press the trigger"
That would give the copyright to Mr Slater, and leave PETA without a chance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad news for the monkey.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad news for the monkey.
I make artistic decisions and arrange how I look every morning after I get up. Therefore I would own the copyright on any photo made of my appearance. Security camera operators better get a license from me before recording my image. Ditto for cops with body cams. I ain't cheap, either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Examine Bridgeman v. Corel for U.S.
Therefore, an auctioneer should not have a copyright on an antique needlework sampler, for example.
Bridgeman v. Corel
Batlin involved the defendants' claim to copyright in a plastic reproduction, with minor variations, of a mechanical cast-iron coin bank that had been sold in the United States for many years and that had passed into the public domain. The Court of Appeals affirmed a district court order compelling the defendants to cancel a recordation of copyright in the plastic reproduction on the ground that the reproduction was not "original" within the meaning of the 1909 Copyright Act, holding that the requirement of originality applies to reproductions of works of art. [n35] Only "a distinguishable variation" -- something beyond technical skill -- will render the reproduction original. [n36] In consequence:
...
"Absent a genuine difference between the underlying work of art and the copy of it for which protection is sought, the public interest in promoting progress in the arts -- indeed, the constitutional demand [citation omitted] -- could hardly be served. To extend copyrightability to minuscule variations would simply put a weapon for harassment in the hands of mischievous copiers intent on appropriating and monopolizing public domain work.
The requisite "distinguishable variation," moreover, is not supplied by a change of medium, as "production of a work of art in a different medium cannot by itself constitute the originality required for copyright protection."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How can Public Domain even become copyrighted?
"Public Domain" means fuck off and don't even try it. They should be charged with attempted theft for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Arstechnica says something different.
Are they both valid or ... what? UK law is so weird. Not that the US is any better, just a weird I understand. Not universally like however. Let's be clear about that.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/you-may-soon-need-a-licence-to-take-photos-of-that-c lassic-designer-chair-you-bought/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Arstechnica says something different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about someone like Richard Prince?
http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/30/8691257/richard-prince-instagram-photos-copyright-law-fair-use
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]