> The Vogue case reminds me to alert list members to a case
> they may find amusing. In a sense, it's the opposite case:
>
> IT WAS probably the first case of copyright theft in which the
> illegal reproduction demands an art-gallery label, reading
> "Earthquake, 1995. Mixed media: marine plywood, oils,
> 4-inch RSJs and a wrecked car"....
> www.londonfreelance.org/fl/0212nhm.html
Not that this suit was undefended. I severely doubt it was even
argued that this was an adaptation rather than a 3 dimensional copy
of a 2 dimensional work (UK law does not protect adaptations of
artistic works).
The unsuccessful defendant can probably still come out of this
ahead by suing London Freelance and John Toner for defamation.
Breach of copyright, even if proven is not "theft". Calling it
"theft" in the UK is most likely defamatory. The WA supreme
court awarded AUD$20,000 dollars (~7,000 pounds) against a
person who called a proven breach "piracy" and "theft". I would
think it likely that the High Court would follow this precedent.
--
| Tim Arnold-Moore, Ph.D., LL.B., B.Sc. (Hons)
| AUSTRALIA
Director of Image Resources & Copyright Management
The Israel Museum, Jerusalem www.imj.org.il
Board of Directors, the Museum Computer Network www.mcn.edu ---
You are currently subscribed to mcn_mcn-l as: [email protected]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [email protected]
