I'm slightly confused by the article. It refers to THJ vs Sheridan (2023) but that ruling was about software-generated graphs and said nothing about reproducing out-of-copyright content?
On a separate note, I found this comment intriguing: > Since I have also established, through a Freedom of Information request, > that the National Gallery has been losing money on its image licensing > operation, hopefully it will embrace this chance to abolish image fees > altogether. Then the gallery, art historians and the public, will be > practically, legally, culturally and financially better off. Wow. --Deryck On Fri, 29 Dec 2023 at 19:57, Andy Mabbett <[email protected]> wrote: > A recent Court of Appeal (England and Wales) case has clarified that > there is no new copyright in photographs reproducing 2D artworks that > are themselves in the public domain - and that (as many of us have > argued) this has been the case since at least 2009. > > > https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2023/12/29/court-of-appeal-ruling-will-prevent-uk-museums-from-charging-reproduction-feesat-last > > -- > Andy Mabbett > @pigsonthewing > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk >
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
