tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post165948002425950915..comments2022-08-11T19:39:04.705+01:00Comments on LawClanger: NPG v WikipediaSimon Bradshawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14233721281522686341noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-79356406908968960822010-02-04T19:40:13.559+00:002010-02-04T19:40:13.559+00:00For those saying that this unzoomify-tools is comp...For those saying that this unzoomify-tools is comparable to breaking in a house with the front door open, you're wrong.<br /><br />Just like you can download an image from Wikipedia, or Google images, you can downlaod an image from sites such as the Royal Collection.<br /><br />There's only 1 difference.<br />On Wikipedia's servers, they serve the images in a [img]-tag. Which means most browsers will allow drag-and-drop to your desktop.<br /><br />Down side is that you have to download the entire image, you can't zoom in or anything.<br /><br />The royal collection serves them in a Flash-player that allows zooming on several levels and only downloads the piece of the image in view at that moment.<br /><br />Flash does not allow drag-and-drop to desktop. however I'm 99% sure that Flash is not used as a measure to protect the image. Instead, it's a made for user experience.<br /><br />Most people on the Royal Collection site dont need to download, they want to be served in a nice Flashy component.<br /><br />Now, if you use a different browser (not Firefox, or Internet Explorer) but unzoomify, then you download the image that their Flash-player uses directly.<br /><br />For clarification, images on the royal collection are owned by the Crown, and such are subject to Crown copyright.<br /><br />In contrary to normal copyright (which expires 70 years after the authors dead), a Crown copyright expires 50 years after publishing.<br /><br />So, whether you agree with me on or not that this tool is not 'breaking' anything. The images in question are public domain anyway. So it's only to blame for the Royal Collection that they make it so hard to download them.<br /><br />As a matter of fact, they are actually illigal, in stating "(c) 2010 UK", because the Royal Collection does no longer own the copyright !<br /><br />--<br />Thanks for reading,<br />GringerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-11437865424146647832009-07-31T01:46:09.055+01:002009-07-31T01:46:09.055+01:00Not trying to spam you, but Green Amps is quite re...Not trying to spam you, but <a href="http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:U7MqKoN_RywJ:www.epsiplus.net/content/download/25926/341503/version/1/file/Estelle_Derclaye_GreenAmps_CaseComment_fulltext.pdf+copyright+%22section+171%22&hl=en&gl=uk" rel="nofollow">Green Amps</a> is quite relevant, a case concerning IPR for maps produced by Ordnance Survey.pbhjhttp://alicious.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-77703803618834231742009-07-31T01:35:12.754+01:002009-07-31T01:35:12.754+01:00Just read this on the NPG site: "We also exer...Just read this on the NPG site: "We also exert strict controls on all photography in the Gallery, which is allowed only on the understanding that copyright rests with us and that any further reproduction deriving from resulting photographic materials is subject to our written permission."<br /><br />Absolute poppycock. If the paintings are out of copyright then they're wrong in this assertion. This is an attempt by a public body to apply an ongoing copyright against that legislated by parliament.pbhjhttp://alicious.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-17557895971718547252009-07-31T01:13:15.448+01:002009-07-31T01:13:15.448+01:00marypcb >>> "maintaining that a gall...marypcb >>> "maintaining that a gallery should have to hand over something it has invested so much in and is being 'assertive' when it doesn't feels rather disingenuous"<br /><br />If the gallery hadn't invested public money your comment would be valid. The UK public bought or were donated the images originally, the public paid the wages and bought the equipment to make the facsimiles. The UK public are now paying the lawyers and the NPG people to prevent them from getting to see images of the artwork that we own.<br /><br />If only the NPG were about getting art to the people and not some ghetto for snobby artists then we'd have a way that any UK subject could get a copy of the NPG works from which they could order a copy to hang on the wall _only_ for the cost of printing of the image.<br /><br />As anyone in the UK could then just take a disc of the images and send it abroad, quite legally, there's no reason to restrict such access.<br /><br />Old masters want to be free. Indeed the NPG claims that one of it's aims is "the provision of access to the national collection of portraits for all sections of the population and visitors from abroad and of the facilities necessary for visitors’ enjoyment of the Gallery".<br /><br />Also the FOI stuff is interesting: if they succeed in claiming database rights then the public by rights should be able to request the portraits under FOI legislation. That would be hilarious!pbhjhttp://alicious.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-8178113277323637902009-07-26T13:52:12.980+01:002009-07-26T13:52:12.980+01:00I think that Bridgeman is best described not so mu...I think that <i>Bridgeman</i> is best described not so much as 'persuasive' as 'suggestive'. An English court might well look at it as one possible interpretation of CDPA 1988, but would bear in mind that it was interpreted through the lens of US copyright law, which has some important differences from the English approach.Simon Bradshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14233721281522686341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-80541645366707972662009-07-26T12:51:17.379+01:002009-07-26T12:51:17.379+01:00@Gillian Davies - 1. Zoomify doesn't purport t...@Gillian Davies - 1. Zoomify doesn't purport to be a security technology either. Their FAQ states this expressly. NPG can claim it is, but the manufacturer says it just isn't. If the NPG claimed a piece of cheese was a lock, that wouldn't make it a lock.<br /><br />2. The UK Museums Copyright Group is headed by a guy from the NPG, so their hopeful assertions, as well as hardly constituting a legal opinion, are somewhat less than independent.David Gerardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13057086390864018760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-37528481033443743732009-07-26T12:46:21.106+01:002009-07-26T12:46:21.106+01:00if anyone knows more about technologies like Zoomi...if anyone knows more about technologies like Zoomify...ones which actually purport to be - even if are not- security measures, I'd love to hear.<br /><br />on Bridgeman- as you prob know, the UK Museums Copyright Group represented by Jonathan Rayner James said a pretty stark 'this is not UK law' and so Bridegman images (so ergo NPG images) WOULD BE COPYRIGHT-PROTECTED at UK law.<br />gdGillian Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01895155567406406893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-19547862687524042302009-07-22T22:08:27.032+01:002009-07-22T22:08:27.032+01:00If you leave your front door ajar and someone push...<i>If you leave your front door ajar and someone pushes it open to gain entry, that is forced entry.</i><br /><br />And if you leave the front door to a town hall, or a church, or even a museum open, it will be assumed that people will push it; because they have a right to push it.Physchim62https://www.blogger.com/profile/03257223365429374032noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-36565998486235514642009-07-22T15:01:33.569+01:002009-07-22T15:01:33.569+01:00The NPG's argument that Zoomify is a copy prot...The NPG's argument that Zoomify is a copy protection measure (let alone an 'effective' one as required by s.296 etc CDPA 1988) is heavily undermined by Zoomify's own FAQ:<br /><br />http://www.zoomify.com/support.htm#a20081218_1457<br /><br />In particular, it says <i>"For this reason, we provide Zoomify as a viewing solution and not an image security system."</i><br /><br />It is not an 'encryption, scrambling or transformation mechanism under s.296ZF(2)(a) and by Zoomify's own admission is not a copy protection mechanism under s.296ZF(2)(b).Simon Bradshawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14233721281522686341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-62946256187727315042009-07-22T14:53:45.043+01:002009-07-22T14:53:45.043+01:00@overton - and if you put a fence around something...@overton - and if you put a fence around something you don't own, you can't claim it's theft if someone goes in and makes a copy of the thing you don't own.<br /><br />The NPG puttin a fence around something they don't own doesn't make it theirs. Not even if it's a very expensive fence that was a lot of work and has lots of fiddly bits.David Gerardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13057086390864018760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-1210488660638767742009-07-22T14:49:34.311+01:002009-07-22T14:49:34.311+01:00Actually, I think it's like solving a pretty e...<i>Actually, I think it's like solving a pretty easy jigsaw puzzle;</i><br /><br />If you leave your front door ajar and someone pushes it open to gain entry, that is forced entry. It doesn't matters how little force was actually needed, the issue is whether any force whatsoever was used.<br /><br />Similarly it doesn't matter how easy it was to bypass the measures put in place to deter someone from downloading the data, the issue is simple whether they knowingly bypass those measures.overtonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-42212084942439489762009-07-21T16:18:49.610+01:002009-07-21T16:18:49.610+01:00Basically its equivalent to forced entry.
Actuall...<i>Basically its equivalent to forced entry.</i><br /><br />Actually, I think it's like solving a pretty easy jigsaw puzzle; I don't know of any effective locks that are based on that principle.<br /><br />Claiming that zoomify is a security measure is like claiming that "<i>arrange these words into a well-known phrase or saying</i>" is a form of data encryption.<br /><br />In any case, this is beside the point. If you erect a fence around public property, how effective it is doesn't matter; the public are still entitled to climb over it.Frank Waleshttp://blog.frankwales.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-76352774103110552472009-07-21T12:33:54.005+01:002009-07-21T12:33:54.005+01:00Well, you don't have to use unzoomify, you can...Well, you don't have to use unzoomify, you can do the same thing by hand, it just takes longer.<br /><br />But that's not the point. Technological measures are only protected if they are used to protect a valid copyright. Otherwise, I could simply use a "technological measure" (eg, a spray-can of paint) to place a copyright claim on Big Ben, then go an retire on the royalties from postcard manufacturers! (unlike the NPG, I would graciously allow passing tourists to take their own photos)Physchim62https://www.blogger.com/profile/03257223365429374032noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-79859988145044832222009-07-21T09:55:26.409+01:002009-07-21T09:55:26.409+01:00there are open-source tools such as ...
The trick...<i>there are open-source tools such as ...</i><br /><br />The trick here is that you have to use a tool to get around the normal operations of the technology. As such the action of downloading the protected data is a deliberate act of circumventing the controls.<br /><br />Basically its equivalent to forced entry.<br /><br />That someone found it relatively easy to do is not an issue. If it were then the law is meaningless as logically by virtue of the fact that the someone was able to access the data the data was not "effecively secured".overtonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-77241715043648157172009-07-21T05:39:30.456+01:002009-07-21T05:39:30.456+01:00Regarding Zoomify and the (possible) circumvention...Regarding Zoomify and the (possible) circumvention of NPG's databases - there are open-source tools such as <a href="http://www.shivars.org/unzoomify" rel="nofollow">unzoomify</a> that make it very easy to download and recompile the tiled Zoomify images.adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04922764129504878536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-61318189933535336852009-07-20T19:54:47.988+01:002009-07-20T19:54:47.988+01:00The HP system involves custom calibration and ligh...The HP system involves custom calibration and lighting to produce a version of the image that gives a remarkably accurate 3D image of the paint surface and texture; it takes a lot of time (a decade for the permanent collection at the NG I think), costs a lot of money, needs training of the operators and is used as the basis of the print on demand system in the National Gallery shop. <br /><br />After all that investment and work, it doesn't feel intuitively that these should be treated as out of copyright snaps when they haven't been put in the public domain - and maintaining that a gallery should have to hand over something it has invested so much in and is being 'assertive' when it doesn't feels rather disingenuous. Were any of the galleries who have resolved similar appropriation of images asked to hand over the medium resolution images before the appropriation? Was the NPG? It could feel like some species of coercion by WMF.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-76152703493791045442009-07-20T16:39:39.989+01:002009-07-20T16:39:39.989+01:00I'm neither a Wikipedia administrator nor a li...I'm neither a Wikipedia administrator nor a listserv member, but I'm sure the NPG are gutted that people are <i>daring</i> to interrupt its nauseous stream of proxy propaganda.<br /><br />If you were looking for a way to protect the CNC instruction files under copyright law, I would suggest that you don't ask Farrer & Co., as they don't seem too hot on such matters. Personally, I don't feel inclined to tell you the answer.Physchim62https://www.blogger.com/profile/03257223365429374032noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-23483927514588724372009-07-20T16:10:00.734+01:002009-07-20T16:10:00.734+01:00So nice to see so many wikipedia administrators an...So nice to see so many wikipedia administrators and list-server members in this thread trying to dissemble.<br /><br />Of course you wouldn't have a copyright on the Venus de Milo, that is a essence of stupidity and dissembling that the wiki apologists are trying promote. <br /><br />However, you ought to have rights over the actual digital files you have created that are capable to drive a CNC robot to cut a replica from a block of marble.overtonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-23033789207533602692009-07-20T16:05:46.256+01:002009-07-20T16:05:46.256+01:00@overton Well, they might have redress for things ...@overton Well, they might have redress for things like breach of employment contract by Mr Disgruntled, or they might have insurance for lost equipment.<br /><br />But, if some Hypothetical Inc were to expend a fortune diligently creating something that the law did not provide protection for, such as unprotectable copies of PD works, then they ought to have no redress for any "loss". That they spent a fortune on this was their decision, and their risk. <br /><br />After all, unless they were incompetent at backups, they still ought to have copies of what they created, so they still have what they spent the money on.<br /><br />If they saw it as an investment, rather than as an expense, more fool them; it's not up to the public or the law to compensate anyone for misunderstanding the difference between investments and expenses.Frank Waleshttp://blog.frankwales.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-32831325631997565652009-07-20T14:41:07.441+01:002009-07-20T14:41:07.441+01:00It's an interesting question, but it's not...It's an interesting question, but it's not the one raised here.<br /><br />If you spent months of work and tens of thousands of pounds creating an exact copy of the Venus de Milo, would that give you copyright over the Venus de Milo? Of course not! Yet that is what the NPG is trying to assert…Physchim62https://www.blogger.com/profile/03257223365429374032noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-10410527153605622792009-07-20T13:36:03.247+01:002009-07-20T13:36:03.247+01:00David Gerard It's actually causing problems in...<b>David Gerard</b> <i>It's actually causing problems in WMF's relations with museums that aren't quite as (hm) assertive as NPG. Very annoyingly timed.</i><br /><br />Gosh you don't say, who'd have thought it?<br /><br />As I've said on other <a href="http://robmyers.org/weblog/2009/07/wikipedia-against-gallery-copyright-overreach.html#comment-2826" rel="nofollow">blogs</a> copying technology has reached a stage now where exact replicas of works of art can be created. <br /><br />The resulting digital files that drive the 3D printers, or CNC machines to reproduce the work may be the culmination of months of work and the expenditure of £10000s.<br /><br />What appears to be being argued here is that if a disgruntled employee where to upload copies to website in the US, or a data stick, or laptop is lost or stolen that contains the files, then the company that created those files has no legal redress. That because the underlaying work is PD then someone can directly use those use files to drive their own 3D printers, or CNC machines.overtonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-47150385274063041782009-07-20T12:21:33.803+01:002009-07-20T12:21:33.803+01:00very deliberately timed, I think.very deliberately timed, I think.Physchim62https://www.blogger.com/profile/03257223365429374032noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-57255515547546990532009-07-20T11:59:43.462+01:002009-07-20T11:59:43.462+01:00@Simon - ah, got it :-) There have been numerous s...@Simon - ah, got it :-) There have been numerous somewhat heated disputes, but none going nearly as far as this one.<br /><br />Ideally WMF doesn't want this to go to court, and I think I can safely say Derrick Coetzee doesn't either. I'd hope the NPG realise they may well lose horribly as well, which I expect is why they contacted WMF to start talks.<br /><br />It's actually causing problems in WMF's relations with museums that aren't quite as (hm) assertive as NPG. Very annoyingly timed.David Gerardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13057086390864018760noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-62927558598457331142009-07-20T11:49:20.557+01:002009-07-20T11:49:20.557+01:00@David
According to the thread on Slashdot and on...@David<br /><br />According to the thread on Slashdot and on the Talk page on Wikipedia there have been previous cases - including one with a major German museum, all of which were settled by the museums offering medium resolution imagery to Wikimedia (which to be honest, is all they actually need).Simon Bissonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15093244547631677904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6617561217353117325.post-36889456075073058302009-07-20T09:46:53.469+01:002009-07-20T09:46:53.469+01:00@Simon - er, what previous Wikimedia cases? This i...@Simon - er, what previous Wikimedia cases? This is, as I understand, the first time a museum or gallery has sent a lawyer's letter.David Gerardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13057086390864018760noreply@blogger.com