When two worlds collide: museum copyright in the digital age
Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

When two worlds collide: museum copyright in the digital age

AIPPI-museum-copyright-thumb

Speakers at the AIPPI World Congress in London discussed whether photos taken on a smartphone of a museum collection can be protected under copyright law

AIPPI-museum-copyright

During today's session, “The Art of IP: Museums and Architecture,” panellists offered perspectives on the protection of photos of artwork in the public domain under copyright law in the EU, the UK and the US. There remain differences in the originality requirements, right of panorama and resale right of artists, and the specifics of protection often clash with the public interest.

Thomas Koch, presiding judge at Germany’s Federal Court of Justice, highlighted a German case in which a museum published photos of one of its collections that had an expired copyright. These pictures were subsequently loaded onto Wikipedia and the artist of the collection sued for copyright infringement. Under the Berne Convention and European Directive 2016/116, Article 1(1), copyright protection can be afforded for the life of the author plus 70 years after his death.

However, EU member states may offer other forms of protection in additional provisions. Under the German Act on Copyright and Related Rights, copyrights shall expire 50 years after a photograph was released.

The question at the heart of the case was whether it was necessary to have a creative achievement in the production of the photo. For instance, would there be a difference in the copyright protection offered if the artwork was photocopied on a copying machine or if someone had taken a quick snapshot on a smartphone? Under German law, the creative achievement would be missing if it was only a reproduction of an existing photo.

“The requirements for protection are low, but the protection itself is also low and would only protect against identical production,” said Koch.

The Federal Court of Justice rejected the view of the lower court and the claimant was successful.

However, a 2019 EU directive, which will be in place in the next two years, could change the landscape. Under this Directive, if the copyright of an artwork has expired, reproduction of it will not be subject to copyright protection unless the production is original and the author’s own creation. If the work itself is a work of art, it will be protected, whereas photos of it will not be protected.

Dr. Eleonora Rosati, associate professor in IP law at Stockholm University, said that museums are increasingly using digital collections to attract visitors, and asked whether protection should be given.

“The Court of Justice of the EU has taken the view that EU law requires originality and, to get copyright protection, a work should carry a personal touch of the author,” said Rosati.

For a digital museum collection, these features may include the need for skill and effort, whether there is originality, and how much investment was put in.

According to Dale Nelson, partner at Donaldson & Callif in the US, no one has challenged the copyright of photos of artwork or the creativity aspect of these photos, except in the famous monkey selfie case. However, there is a pending case involving Ariana Grande, who used paparazzi photos taken of her and posted them on Instagram.

Christian Zimmerman, CEO at DACS, a UK-based non-profit visual artists’ rights management organisation, explained that under UK copyright law, photos would be protected but the new EU directive might call this into question.

In the UK he has noticed a trend for museums to allow people to take photos and post them online.

“Since the change in the copyright law in 2014, museums have been jumping on the bandwagon to let people freely take pictures and have even curated them and posted Instagram exhibitions,” he said.

They’ve been doing this to get more viewings and generate more publicity for exhibitions.

And technological solutions to get around the copying of photos by watermarking images and using lower resolution images so that they are less likely to be re-used are also becoming more prevalent.

What is clear, Zimmerman said, is that these actions and reactions have had an impact on what qualifies as art.

The Congress finishes on September 18.

Image credit: Simon Callaghan Photography

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The FRAND rate is only 5 cents higher than the per-device rate determined at first instance in 2023
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Nearly four months after joining Crowell & Moring, Edward Taelman reflects on starting afresh, new clients, and firm culture
Firms discuss the ebb and flow of life sciences IP work and explain how they help professionals pivot between specialities
Mercedes-Benz, Dolby Laboratories, and Panasonic discuss the merits and drawbacks of the USPTO's terminal disclaimer proposal
In-house counsel believe Chinese domestic firms are becoming as sophisticated as international firms, but they may not shift their portfolios just yet
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is looking to renew a ban that has prevented Judge Pauline Newman from hearing cases
The list of the top representative firms at the UPC may yield few surprises but their success did not come free
The German firms have accounted for 26% of all infringement actions, while US corporations appear interested in litigating at the forum, a report has revealed
Vincent Brault tells us how he fits kitesurfing into his lunchtime routine and why IP is no longer seen as ‘nerdy’
Gift this article