It is certainly strange to me that some cultural organisations pursue image licensing as a loss making venture that also borders on copyfraud...
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 at 09:39, Deryck Chan <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -- Lucy Crompton-Reid Chief Executive
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
