When I do use Linux, I choose to use Opera rather than Firefox.

You cannot get anymore “open” than Linux, so we’ll use it in an analogy. If Linus Torvalds was asked to remove someone elses code from the Linux kernel, he would, even though he has no obligation to. Even if the other person had submitted that code, and the code was licened as Open Source, he would remove the code.

If someone in the US were to point out to him in Finland that some of the code in the kernel was under copyright, would he remove the code from the kernel, or would he say “well, its not under copyright in Finland so we’ll keep it in”. A guess is, he would remove it, just like he removed open source code even though he had no legal obligation to.

There are 26 million people in the UK who pay income tax (apparently). Each and every single one of them would have to face a bill on their income tax of 2p each, just to cover the NPG, that doesn’t include the other galleries either, who knows how much extra taxation would be needed to cover the costs.

For man to progress, a man must know that his works are protected, the NPG allows anyone in the world to download and view their image, if you see one you like and want someone else to see, you can point them to the image on the website, and share it like that. You can even print it out and show it to your friends! This is a vital resource that should (and is, contrary to Physchim62′s opinion) be protected.

Without the protection, I could download all 16,000 images from the NPG, and stand outside the gallery selling a book of high quality images of every print in the archive.

This however doesn’t look like it is going to court, which means that the case has not been tested and copyright law does still apply in the UK. Until such a time as it is heard in the UK courts, that is the truth of the matter. It could easily be argued that if the WMF felt that they would win, they would have held firm, at the end of the case they would have been awarded costs (if they had won). It could also be argued that the NPG could have held firm, but by getting into discussion they are avoiding a court case, and by avoiding the court case the law as it is stands, and as copyright experts in the UK have stated, the images are copyrighted.

@Physchim62 – I assume you are a UK copyright lawyer, it has been pointed out why the images are copyrighted with links to the legal documentation. Are you going to back up your continued assertion that the images are public domain with proof? As pointed out repeatedly, Bridgeman v Corel holds *no* legal water in the UK, so you cannot use that as “evidence”, so please, enlighten us all with how you can be 100% certain of your conviction.

Moreover, that includes their liberty to exchange their labour in doing so in a free market. Why must commerce be removed from the individual artist? We should seek to enable their reward, not prohibit it.

Why on earth is an organisation supposedly acting in the public interest so set upon ‘letting the public look but not touch’, and only in private?

Once could expect a corporation such as Disney to take pains to enclose our culture (myths, legends, and folklore), but surely not an organisation tasked with protecting our cultural birthright rather than profiting from it?

I think you’ll find that copyright as a matter of principle only ever sounds reasonable to those who also hope one day to similarly profit from the suspension of their fellows’ cultural liberty. It’s a seductive corruption that has also infected institutions tasked with the sharing of human knowledge, i.e. universities.

When did you first fall prey to the notion that for man to progress he must be prevented from sharing and building upon the art and knowledge of his fellows?

The National Portrait Gallery’s website is here for your enjoyment. You may:

?access, download and/or print contents for non-commercial research and private study purposes

That to me sounds like, I can download every image on their website for private use, that sounds to me that they are delivering art to the public, does it not? If they had said “you may not download…” then that would be denying the public.

All they ask is if you wish to use the images for any other purpose (non private use) you obtain permission/a licence. That seems reasonable and fair to me, as it includes all their works, including works where the artist is still alive.

It is thus not the manual labour that copyright is supposed to reward, but the production and delivery of new creative works (to the public).

Unfortunately, what most overlook is the greater loss of cultural liberty that copyright inflicts upon the people, all to line the pockets of the publishing industry, with lip service that it’s in the cause of cultural enrichment. That’s the biggest con of all. So, it’s quite understandable that the NPG seeks not to deliver art to the public, but to profit from an unethical monopoly over its reproduction.

The original paintings are not subject to copyright – the digitised images are.

Similarly the works of mozart are not subject to copyright, recordings are. Hell even reproductions of the sheet music are.

I fear wmf has done their reputation with other, similar institutions a lot of harm here. Harm that will go beyong the NPG

But that’s probably not on topic for this post. I suspect the problems you describe are more to do with the nature of bureaucracies: self-preservation becomes the first goal.

We are arguing for the release of public property to the public, the publication of photographic images produced at great public expense. Moreover this publication must be without any form of legal, physical, or technical hindrance that will encumber the public in their use of these images.

It is the public who must be free here. They have paid their money. They want their property, and they want to be free to enjoy it without paying a second and third time.

For some mercenary reason the NPG is withholding the public’s property, or providing it only in dribs and drabs via a keyhole, in order to generate additional revenue for its own enrichment. If anything, that revenue has been illegitimately generated with money provided by the public for the release of those images, not for their retention. The public did not provide the money for the purposes of covering NPG’s expenses, but to provide the public with photographic access to its gallery – unstinting and unencumbered access.

Will the NPG serve itself or the public?

“As David [Webb] has noted above – the National Portrait Gallery had these images freely available in high resolution on their website, and removed them following the scraping and unauthorised uploading to Wikimedia. The inability to view these, and the remainder of the collection that had been digitised, is purely a consequence of the actions (or lack of) of Mr Coetzee and the Wikimedia Foundation. ”

Please read what you just wrote. It sounds just like a mafia man. “We were prepared to negotiate for the return of the hostage. Now that you have told the police, we have no choice but to kill her, and it is purely your fault.”

No, it isn’t.

Your comments on the British Library are very apposite, if a little misconceived.

The British Library has refused, solidly, for 10 years, to my certain knowledge, to digitise its collection of medieval manuscripts. It also refuses to allow almost anyone to access them. Since it is based in London, even people like myself who DO have clearance cannot in fact go there very often. I asked them to digitise 3 manuscripts, each of 100 pages. I could photograph them in a day. They are quite sturdy.

They refused to do so. I offered to photograph them. They refused. They agreed to photograph them only if I paid them £8,000. That’s £20 per click of the camera. And they wouldn’t put them online then. They offered to allow ME to put them online, so long as I paid them £500 a year for the rest of my life.

Yet the manuscripts have never been photographed at all! So, as you remark, some fool could go in and steal pages. But the BL view is better that, than that the images should appear on the web.

Preservation means photography, and the creation of many copies of the images. To obstruct this is criminal.

So why does the BL do this? Because they are making money by selling crude black-and-white (not even monochrome) images to scholars trying to make use of the texts at massive prices (hundreds of pounds).

This seems to be the same motive as the NPG. Short-term greed, and the hell with the public interest.

David Webb Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
July 17th, 2009 at 00:46

Piotr Konieczny Says:
July 17th, 2009 at 02:54

David Gerard Says:
July 17th, 2009 at 03:47

Crosbie Fitch Says:
July 17th, 2009 at 08:33

Over 8 hours and 3 comments later, my entry is *still* awaiting moderation, whilst “pro wiki” comments are moderated and visible, doesn’t that strike you as “odd” in any form? Are the questions I asked too difficult to be posted on the wiki’s blog?

The uploaders (I keep forgetting his name) talk page discusses the removal of watermarks and a batch downloading tool. I shall email the lawyers in this case and ask if the images contained a watermark, if they did and the lawyers were unaware of this, then there may be a case for a DCMA take down notice.

Not even the NPG have suggested (publicly) taking criminal proceedings, although it is possible that they had already discussed this with the Crown Prosecution Service and been told that they would never win before Hell froze over, hence the decision to go for the “civil” route. There is nothing illegal about removing a watermark from a digital image which would otherwise be public domain: the illegality arises from including it in the first place without a solid reason for doing so.

“Electronic rights management information is any information provided by the copyright owner which identifies the work, the author or any other right holder, or information about the terms and conditions of use of the work, and any numbers or codes that represent such information. Any attempt to interfere with this data, remove it or retransmit a work without it will become a criminal offence. As in the case of technological measures, this new law gives museums, archives and libraries new powers to protect their digitised collections or other material they have produced in electronic form.” (2003 Copyright Regulations)

http://www.museumscopyright.org.uk/bridge.htm

A report on the effect of Bridgeman v. Corel:

“Bridgeman -v- Corel is not binding in the UK and is of doubtful authority even in the USA. It has not influenced the way museums negotiate or license rights and there have been no serious attempts by commercial users to undermine the position of museums. ”

I have wrote to my MP about this subject with my points of view, my MP will most likely discuss this with Ben Bradshaw and then send me a postal letter with the results. Hopefully this matter will be brought up in Parliament before it goes anywhere near the courts, so that the MP’s can clarify the legal position according to current legislation.

@Physchim62 – Farrer & Co state there has been no UK equivilent of the US case, and until such time as there is a case which decides it, then as Farrer & Co state “practicing lawyers and legal academics alike generally agree that under a UK law analysis the judgment in Bridgeman v. Corel is wrong and that copyright can subsist in a photograph of a painting.” So it’s nice to know you are agreeing the Farrer& Co on this subject.

You are though, constantly pointing out Bridgeman v. Corel, forget that case 100%, it holds no sway under the UK system, so constantly pointing to the US case, where the legal community in the UK agree that the ruling under UK law wouldn’t even stand, doesn’t enhance your point of view, it detracts from it with a “can’t they find something else? is their only defence a US court case which the UK legal industry indicates wouldn’t stand in a UK court?”

I read parts of the documentaion on OPSI last night, the WMF’s only stance is “it’s not copyright in the US”, the OPSI legislation points out that photographs are copyright, Farrer & Co point out which parts apply, Farrer & Co seem to have a checklist of things they need to point out.

So, other than cases in other countries which do not apply, have you found any legislation in the UK which would counter-act the copyright legislation, or are you going to cling on to “Bridgeman v. Corel” as the only defence you have of your point of view?

@All – I have the server logs. We’re about all that’s reading this far down. But don’t let me stop you adding comments to this thread.