Could Taking A Selfie In A Museum Violate Copyright Law?

from the of-course-it-could dept

Copyright infringement is everywhere. A few years back, John Tehranian wrote a paper (and then a book*) called "Infringement Nation" about just how much copyright infringement happens incidentally on a daily basis. The conclusion, from a back of the envelope estimate, is that an average person is likely liable for $4.544 billion in incidental infringement in a normal year. And that's not for sharing music and movies and what not, but just doing the normal everyday things you do.

With the news that the National Gallery in the UK has rescinded its long-standing "no photographs" rule, it appears that another opportunity for incidental and accidental infringement has been unleashed upon people in the UK. The National Gallery apparently realized that with everyone carrying a smartphone these days (and the fact that it offers free WiFi that it encourages patrons to use), it became kind of ridiculous to try to block photographs while encouraging people to use their phones to research the artwork they were looking at.

However, the original notice noted that "temporary" exhibits will still have restrictions on photography "for reasons of copyright." But, as IPKat notes above, it's not clear why that should only apply to the temporary exhibits, since many of the permanent exhibit works are still under copyright as well (though the museum itself might also hold the copyright on many of those works). Either way, IPKat wonders if merely including a piece of copyright-covered artwork in the background of a photo -- such as a selfie -- might lead to claims of infringement. While some countries have freedom of panorama laws** that say it's okay to represent artistic works on public display, that apparently does not apply to paintings (though it does apply to sculptures).

In the end, it appears that while it may be unlikely to get sued over taking a selfie in the National Gallery, if you're the extra cautious type, you might want to avoid it for fear of yet another ridiculous copyright claim. As IPKat notes, the caselaw is at least ambiguous enough that if someone wanted to go after you for your selfie with fine art, you might be in trouble. That this end result is ridiculous and kind of stupid isn't really discussed in the piece, but seems rather obvious. Yes, it may be unlikely that a lawsuit will come out of it, but we've seen sillier lawsuits in the past, and I doubt it would surprise many if this new policy also results in a lawsuit down the road. Because that's just the way copyright works.

* Speaking of Tehranian's book. According to Amazon you can currently get a Kindle ebook copy for... just $39.99! Yes, an ebook for $40. It almost makes me wonder if they're demonstrating the insanity of copyright laws, in a book about how silly copyright law is, by pricing it at an insane price.

** On that note, I have to admit my knowledge of such "freedom of panorama" laws was fairly limited, but it seems ridiculous that no one is considering passing such a law in the US. The number of stories of people getting sued for photographs of public displays is getting silly here.

Filed Under: copyright, museum, selfies


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Whatever (profile), 22 Sep 2014 @ 10:42pm

    good story... but

    Well, as per usual, what is missing here is that little concept called "common sense" and "practical application of the law". Nobody is going to get sued for a selfie that doesn't show anything in particular, but generally if they say "don't take pictures here" then a selfie would get you in trouble.

    The "4.55 billion" story you point to is also pretty much a crock of shit. You don't see people getting sued for copyright infringement as a result of unintentional appearance of copyright items in personal pictures. Forwarding a picture someone sent you be email to someone else? Are you kidding me? Posting it up on social media might be an issue, but private one to one email pretty much shows no intent to violate anything.

    Trying to use stuff like this to condemn copyright is pretty much the biggest reach possible - and pretty sad.

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.