photographing images.

[lorenza]

Goodmorning everyone  
I need your experience. I took some pictures in a museum in Sardinia. I took some pictures of the images taken in the 80s, in black and white (they are great photos that show the archaeological site that I visited) and I also took pictures of the scholar and founder of the museum. Can I publish them? As for the photographs should I indicate the photographer who made them or is it enough to say that they are in the museum?
It is understood that, in that site, there is no limitation to photography.
Thank you for your help 
lorenza

[KTC]

The photographs that you in turn took photos of will almost certainly be no, since they're likely to be copyrighted.

[lorenza]

22 minutes ago, KTC said:

The photographs that you in turn took photos of will almost certainly be no, since they're likely to be copyrighted.

 

 

 

 

 

59/5000

 

thanks, but I could not understand what you want to tell me!!

 

[Allan Bell]

9 minutes ago, lorenza said:

 

 

 

 

 

59/5000

 

thanks, but I could not understand what you want to tell me!!

 

 

The original photographers copyright is still in force so that means if you publish your copies you will be open to claims for infringement of the photographers copyright.

 

Allan

 

 

[spacecadet]

2 minutes ago, Allan Bell said:

 

The original photographers copyright is still in force so that means if you publish your copies you will be open to claims for infringement of the photographers copyright.

 

Allan

 

 

If they are straight copies, maybe, but if they are just part of the scene, you're unlikely to infringe.

[lorenza]

Thank you! I think I have understood ... good weekend !!!

[KTC]

While I agree with the underlying point about incidental inclusion of copyrighted works, I don't think MYJ2PC falls anywhere close to being de minimis, and would question whether KKFAGJ does either.

The photos on display in MYJ2PC are not incidental to the subject of the photography, it is the whole subject of it. For KKFAGJ, that's less so, since the subject can be argued to be the man admiring the works, but counter to that, the works being admired is very much part of the subject.

I would say incidental inclusion is more like this


Of course, UK copyright law does have fair dealing exceptions for news reporting so if it's restricted to editorial only, it's probably fine.

Back to OP, "Sardinia" as in Italy? Exceptions are more limited in general than e.g. UK, don't know enough to want to speculate whether a restriction to editorial only would be sufficient.

[spacecadet]

I'm with Ian on the individual photographs. It would be hard to argue that an individual image was copied "as a whole" or in "substantial part" (CDPA s16(3(a))) when seen from such a distance as not to be able to discern its detail.

However, if there is a separate copyright in the arrangement of the exhibition, that might be infringed, but I'd say that a row of images on a wall is too commonplace to qualify for protection.