<p dir="ltr">Forwarding from another list. This may have an impact when using digitized copies of public domain maps. </p>
<div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: "Michael Maggs" <<a href="mailto:Michael@maggs.name">Michael@maggs.name</a>><br>Date: 15 Dec 2015 13:20<br>Subject: [Wikimediauk-l] UK IPO updates advice on copyright in digitised public domain works<br>To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" <<a href="mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org">wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org</a>>, "<a href="mailto:wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org">wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org">wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org</a>>, <<a href="mailto:commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org">commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org</a>><br>Cc: <br><br type="attribution">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
There are at long last indications that UK copyright law is moving in
the direction of the WMF and Commons policy [1] that "<span style="font-weight:bold">faithful copies of public domain works are
themselves in the public domain</span>" - in other words that faithful
photographic reproductions of old, out of copyright artworks such as
paintings do not create an enforceable new copyright for the
photographer. The UK Intellectual Property Office has recently updated
its copyright advice notice [2] to include the following:<br>
<br>
<div style="margin-left:40px"><span style="font-weight:bold;font-style:italic">Are digitised copies of older images protected by
copyright?</span><br style="font-style:italic">
<br style="font-style:italic">
<span style="font-style:italic">''Simply creating a copy of an
image won’t result in a new copyright in the new item. However, there is
a degree of uncertainty regarding whether copyright can exist in
digitised copies of older images for which copyright has expired. Some
people argue that a new copyright may arise in such copies if specialist
skills have been used to optimise detail, and/or the original image has
been touched up to remove blemishes, stains or creases.''</span><br style="font-style:italic">
<br style="font-style:italic">
<span style="font-style:italic">''However, according to the Court
of Justice of the European Union which has effect in UK law, copyright
can only subsist in subject matter that is original in the sense that it
is the author’s own ‘intellectual creation’. Given this criteria, it
seems unlikely that what is merely a retouched, digitised image of an
older work can be considered as ‘original’. This is because there will
generally be minimal scope for a creator to exercise free and creative
choices if their aim is simply to make a faithful reproduction of an
existing work.'' </span><br>
</div>
<br>
This official advice from a UK Government agency is useful as it
recommends a strikingly different approach from the one that has been
taken over many years by the UK courts, namely that a new copyright can
very easily be created merely by the 'skill and labour' involved in
taking any sort of photograph (the copyright practitioner's text,
Copinger & Skone James, says that "<span style="font-style:italic">in
terms of what is original for the purpose of determining whether
copyright subsists in a photograph, the requirement of originality is
low and may be satisfied by little more than the opportunistic pointing
of the camera and the pressing of the shutter button</span>.")<br>
<br>
Although the IPO advice is not binding on the UK courts, it will be of
useful persuasive value. It's interesting that the official view being
taken is that the European Court of Justice has effectively replaced the
very low bar of "<span style="font-style:italic">Was sufficient skill
and labour applied?</span>" with the higher one of "<span style="font-style:italic">Is it the author’s own intellectual
creation?</span>''. The 2009 CJEU decision in <span style="font-style:italic">Infopaq</span> [3] is gaining traction. <br>
<br>
Communia have published a blog post [4] that is worth reading.<br>
<br>
<br>
<p>Michael Maggs</p>
<p>Chair, Wikimedia UK</p>
<br>
[1]
<a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag" target="_blank">https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag</a><br>
[2]
<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/481194/c-notice-201401.pdf" target="_blank">https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/481194/c-notice-201401.pdf</a><br>
[3] <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:62008CJ0005" target="_blank">http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:62008CJ0005</a><br>
[4] <a href="http://www.communia-association.org/2015/12/04/1761/" target="_blank">http://www.communia-association.org/2015/12/04/1761/</a><br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Wikimedia UK mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org">wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l</a><br>
WMUK: <a href="https://wikimedia.org.uk" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://wikimedia.org.uk</a><br></div>