Is The National Portrait Gallery Lying About The Cost Of Its Digital Archives In Fight With Wikimedia?

from the might-be... dept

Last week, we wrote about how the National Portrait Gallery in the UK was threatening a guy who uploaded a bunch of photos from the Gallery's site to Wikipedia and defended his upload by noting that the portraits in question were all in the public domain. The Gallery insists that the photos of the portraits are not in the public domain, and that's where the heart of the legal dispute lies -- though, there are some side issues. In the US, it's pretty clear that a photo of a public domain work remains in the public domain (assuming no additional creative expression is added). In the UK, it's unsettled law. However, as the situation gets more attention, some interesting facts are coming out.

The National Gallery is claiming that a big part of the reason for why it's doing this is that it has cost £1 million to digitize the photos, and removing the ability to license the images makes it less likely that others will digitize their own collections. That's not a bad argument (though, there isn't necessarily a legal basis that copyright should be based on how much it costs to create the work in question). However, someone decided to check on those numbers, and put in a Freedom of Information request, and discovered that the actual costs to digitize and put the collection online was significantly lower than what the Gallery is claiming:
The Gallery spent £18,000 to put its collections online in 1999. During a ten year period up to 2008 another £10,000 was spent on minor developments and adjustments and in 2008 and 2009 a further £11,000 was spent. This gives a total figure of £39,000.
Now, that's not nothing, but £39,000 is significantly lower than £1 million, yes?

Filed Under: derrick coetzee, public domain, uk national portrait gallery, wikimedia


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Jul 2009 @ 6:44am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: UK Copyright Law

    Theft is not to be recognised as being deprived of use, but as a thief taking your possessions (including intellectual works) without authorisation.

    Except, I didn't say just "use". So don't try to say that I did. It isn't honest. And you will have a hard time arguing that something has been stolen from you if you are still in full possession and use of it. You may disagree with that, but I think the Supreme Court out ranks you on legal matters.

    Let's say a thief takes your used stapler, but replaces it with a new one of exactly the same model. You'll say nothing was stolen because the owner was not deprived of use.

    That is absolutely not true and not conceivably covered as anything but theft according to what I said. Again, to try to claim that I said otherwise is just plain lying. There just went your reputation, if you had any.

    Being deprived of use or possession is simply a typical consequence of theft - it does not define theft.

    Legally, that's generally a requirement whether you happen to feel that it's "natural" or not. The law isn't based on your feelings.

    Are you so enamored of your self-deception that you feel compelled to misstate what others have said? If that's the case, then talking to you is clearly a waste of time and I give up. Go ahead, you can have your last word now.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.