Museums and copyright ownership of Public domain images..

Debra said:

Right. So, apropos Gregory's comments, a case like Bridgeman vs. Corel carries no authority in courts outside the US.

Click to expand...

Authority doesn't really matter. It is an example of what will probably happen in any good courtroom regarding Public Domain issues, particularly Europe, if a similar law suit ensues there. Many of those types of lawsuits are settled out of court. The only reason to proceed to the finish is for the purpose of making the law clear. I'm sure the museums don't want that.

Of course badly governed third world countries can pass any laws they want, but the world is getting smaller and smaller and we will eventually all be under a one world government of some kind probably.

Whoops. You were responding as I was editing my post

Here is the first section--near the top of the essay--that alerted me to her bias, imprecision and careless reasoning.

update - 1 October 2004: I had to share this news with public domain advocates. I was reading through some of the Congressional speeches regarding copyright and came across this gem - Congresswoman Mary Bono (whose late husband pushed through one of the most disastrous copyright laws ever) was reminded that the US Constitution prohibits perpetual intellectual property rights. Her response? The copyright term should be "forever minus one day".

I'm serious.

If that doesn't offend and alarm you, what will? If she had her way, you wouldn't be able to read The Bible for free. Please consider this issue when you vote. This is one of the great unreported stories in the US, Europe and now, sadly, Australia. Yes, the Aussies signed (August 2004) a free-trade agreement with the US which required that Australia accept our draconian copyright laws.

Click to expand...

Copyright law has nothing to do with reading the Bible for free. This is sloppy thinking.

At any rate, Wendywu posted a link (in your original thread that inspired this one) to some good discussion of the topic--hope that helps! It's an interesting and important issue for artists, that's for sure.

Jenny_writer said:

No, I am looking at Bridgeman vs Corel 1999.

Click to expand...

Actually the case I was thinking of was not Bridgeman vs Corel, but wikipedia vs the National Portrait Gallery of London. Baba_prague is more aware of how it is going than I am – I would like to see wiki win – but I suspect they will not. It refers to the reproductions of pictures owned by the National Portrait Gallery in wiki articles on line. The gallery takes the view that this is breach of their copyright.

And I too am comfortable with the use of the word theft when we talk of what is effectively stealing the work of artists. It may be a loose use of the term – but it is a use we can all understand.

But the whole area is a minefield and until every possible ramification has been tested in court, I wouldn’t want to mess with it. USG and the Waite-Smith deck is a case in point. I would have thought it entirely obvious that it was out of copyright by now – but they continue to say that they hold copyright till I forget when. I’d bet museums would like to have the law clarified; I feel sure they are sure they would win.

I can’t look anything up about this on this connection. But I hope baba_prague weighs in; she has loads of information.

gregory said:

Actually the case I was thinking of was not Bridgeman vs Corel, but wikipedia vs the National Portrait Gallery of London. Baba_prague is more aware of how it is going than I am – I would like to see wiki win – but I suspect they will not. It refers to the reproductions of pictures owned by the National Portrait Gallery in wiki articles on line. The gallery takes the view that this is breach of their copyright.

And I too am comfortable with the use of the word theft when we talk of what is effectively stealing the work of artists. It may be a loose use of the term – but it is a use we can all understand.

But the whole area is a minefield and until every possible ramification has been tested in court, I wouldn’t want to mess with it. USG and the Waite-Smith deck is a case in point. I would have thought it entirely obvious that it was out of copyright by now – but they continue to say that they hold copyright till I forget when. I’d bet museums would like to have the law clarified; I feel sure they are sure they would win.

I can’t look anything up about this on this connection. But I hope baba_prague weighs in; she has loads of information.

Click to expand...

Tell me why you say that you think museums "would like to have the law clarified." -- and Exactly what law are you talking about? Is there a law regarding public domain and copyright ownership going to the owner or a museum... for two dimensional images/paintings?

Do you know of any law anywhere that gives the museums the right to own copyright to the (old) paintings they own that are defined as "public domain" according to how long the artist has been dead?

Debra said:

Whoops. You were responding as I was editing my post

Here is the first section--near the top of the essay--that alerted me to her bias, imprecision and careless reasoning.




Copyright law has nothing to do with reading the Bible for free. This is sloppy thinking.

Click to expand...

That is simply embellishment and sarcasm. It does not have any baring on the facts, its just a person's emotional opinion. Yes, I take that stuff with a grain of salt.

But I have sifted through tons of information on the Internet for years and I evaluate the information. I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater if it is not written to my satisfaction or if the author gets a little emotional or sarcastic. I also check out the facts.

gregory said:

Actually the case I was thinking of was not Bridgeman vs Corel, but wikipedia vs the National Portrait Gallery of London. Baba_prague is more aware of how it is going than I am – I would like to see wiki win – but I suspect they will not. It refers to the reproductions of pictures owned by the National Portrait Gallery in wiki articles on line. The gallery takes the view that this is breach of their copyright.

Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with that case. Are these images old public domain images? What about fair use laws for educational purpose? Is Wiki making money on these images? If so how much? Is Bridgeman being damaged by this activity? Can they prove it? These are the questions the court will ask.

And I too am comfortable with the use of the word theft when we talk of what is effectively stealing the work of artists. It may be a loose use of the term – but it is a use we can all understand.

Click to expand...

Being an artist I might agree with you, but then we would both be wrong. ;-)

Being a private investigator, I am not comfortable using the term theft (which is a crime).

For example: I could on on the Internet, aquire (steal as they say) artwork and then send it to my printer and have him print up some greeting cards. Then I could openly start selling them in my town and even on the Internet.
If the artist discovers I am doing this, she or he can send me a notice to cease and desist this activity and she can sue me for damages but she has to prove damages. I may have to pay her compensation for any money I made, but I would never be arrested or put in jail. THAT is the difference between a tort and a crime.

If it were a crime she would simply file charges for theft and have me arrested.

Now if I went to her house and stole her artwork, and they found it in my possession, I could be charged with a crime and arrested.

There IS a difference. Yes people like to scream and holler "THEFT, THIEF!" etc, but that don't make it so, it's just more fun.

But the whole area is a minefield and until every possible ramification has been tested in court, I wouldn’t want to mess with it. USG and the Waite-Smith deck is a case in point. I would have thought it entirely obvious that it was out of copyright by now – but they continue to say that they hold copyright till I forget when. I’d bet museums would like to have the law clarified; I feel sure they are sure they would win.

I can’t look anything up about this on this connection. But I hope baba_prague weighs in; she has loads of information.

Click to expand...

I am not familiar with the Waite-Smith deck case, but I see lots of similar decks like that so much so that I don't even know which one is the original.

I have some of those images on my website, so does learntarot.com. I don't see anyone suing me or even fussing about it.

Here's a thought.

If "public domain" means that the image belongs to the public, then a museum should be forced by law to allow people to photograph and use and profit from the images just as much as they do.

If they won't do that, then they are violating the rights of the public by keeping them from using an image that by definition belongs to everyone. They may as well just become private collectors and hide the paintings away in a vault. They would not be able to call themselves museums then.

But if there is a law, anywhere that states that when copyright runs out after an artist is dead, the owner of the art becomes the owner of the copyright of the image, then I would like to know what law that is.

And how would that law be applied for previous owners of the art who took pictures of it for the purpose of profit?

And why not do a search for descendants of the actual artist and give the copyright ownership to them, or do the owners of the art have priority? If so, what LAW gives them priority. What law hands museums ownership of copyright of any public domain image or any artwork whose copyright has expired?

That is my question.

I'm having a hard time understanding your point, Jenny. I mean the point of this thread.

The thread begins with a link to what I consider a poor overview.

And you disagree. I wonder, if the author's silly and specious statement about the Bible is merely embellishment and sarcasm, and you regard it as irrelevant in judging the overall quality of her interpretation, then doesn't it make sense to extend the same courtesy to those who draw a metaphorical equivalence between copyright infringement and theft?

It's hard to know what kind of discussion you're hoping for. I wonder if you want a discussion of copyright issues for collage decks? I think Sarah Ovenall's site is the place to go, then. Or is your purpose simply to share a link that you like, or... what? ???

Debra said:

I'm having a hard time understanding your point, Jenny. I mean the point of this thread.

The thread begins with a link to what I consider a poor overview.

And you disagree. I wonder, if the author's silly and specious statement about the Bible is merely embellishment and sarcasm, and you regard it as irrelevant in judging the overall quality of her interpretation, then doesn't it make sense to extend the same courtesy to those who draw a metaphorical equivalence between copyright infringement and theft?

It's hard to know what kind of discussion you're hoping for. I wonder if you want a discussion of copyright issues for collage decks? I think Sarah Ovenall's site is the place to go, then. Or is your purpose simply to share a link that you like, or... what? ???

Click to expand...

I will summarize it for you.

This discussion is about the claim by museums that they own copyright to public domain reproductions and art just because they own the art.

You want to totally disregard all the points in the link I offered because you did not like the way the article was written and the remark about the Bible, which has little to do with the point. I agree with you that remark in that article was pointless. It was a bad analogy.

That said, it does not change the facts that were pointed out in the article.

The link you posted has a better description of the case I am referring to, and I agreed with you that it was written much better.

But the remark about the Bible seems to be distracting you from the whole point. I agree it was not a good analogy but I'm not letting it distract me from the facts.