This morning I saw some portraits uploaded to profiles. In the copyright box the ART UK copyright policy was quoted. This site has recently updated it's policy and now many paintings include this generic wording. (Some have more specific conditions)
Here's a link to the policy. https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/portrait-of-a-tarrant-rushton-farmer-59585 as attached to a portrait of one of my husband's ancestors. CLICK on the copyright symbol. I took it to mean that I couldn't upload it without permission from the museum (who in this case haven't replied )
Opinions?
Copyright is frequently claimed when it is not applicable. If this were in the U.S., this photo of a public domain painting would not be eligible for copyright protection under the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. decision.
It's murkier in the U.K. where Crown Copyright covers some items, but does not appear to be applicable to this painting or photo. The U.K. Intellectual Property Office is the agency that provides guidance on copyright issues. Just last year, they updated their guidance on Copyright notice: digital images, photographs and the internet:
Are digitised copies of older images protected by copyright? 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. However, according to established case law, the courts have said that copyright can only subsist in subject matter that is original in the sense that it is the author’s own ‘intellectual creation’. Given this criterion, 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.
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.
However, according to established case law, the courts have said that copyright can only subsist in subject matter that is original in the sense that it is the author’s own ‘intellectual creation’. Given this criterion, 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.
