I would like to ask a question related to this discussion, but a bit broader.
all CC licenses state in their page that "You do not have to comply with the license
for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an
applicable exception or limitation." (example
)
this is not already a relevant argument in favor of the cc licenses? in case of public
domain, documentation remains in public domain (the license doesn't restrict it).
I have to admit that in general i like the cc by-sa as a default license for museums and
cultural institutions.
1. it can be applied also for documentation which is not already in public domain (texts,
educational material, documentation included in catalogues, artwork descriptions). this is
an important component of the collections and it does not only provide an image but also
the frame to understand and contextualize that image. Encouraging institutions to provide
more than the image i think it is very important to make content not only accessible but
relevant to build on it.
2. mentioning the name of the institution is relevant to locate an artwork. if the company
which made the photos or scanning had its name in the attribution i would consider it spam
and i would fully agree to limit or avoid attribution; but the location of an artwork to
me seems to provide a very relevant information for users (an artwork indeed is not the
photo of the artwork; it is the artwork itself. and knowing where it is allows to have the
chance to actually see it). the name of the institution can be linked to the attribution
but somehow it goes beyond it.
3. share-alike represents the possibility to make what we do viral. of course i do not
think we should reduce our freedom to limit what is in public domain or in cc by, but i
like that our effort to make knowledge open makes more knowledge open. it nourishes what
we do and it goes beyond ourselves.
iolanda
Il giorno 22/gen/2014, alle ore 00:43, Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt(a)gmail.com> ha scritto:
I see this was also announced on the WM-UK blog -
http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2014/01/wellcome-images-freely-releases-100000…
I've copied in Jonathan who is the WMUK GLAM coordinator in case he's had any
involvement in Wellcome's announcement. Perhaps he can lend insight?
I've worked on quite a few image-release negotiations and it is possible that this
has been done this way through honest mistake, through justifed fears, through meddling of
the legal/marketing departments.... I quite like Andy Mabbett's comment on
Wellcome's blog announcement, sums up the problems (legal and technological) quite
well in my opinion:
"It’s great to have these images available, digitally, but why are you claiming
copyright over, and to be the original source of, artworks and images from books which are
already in the public domain? Why have you added a strapline underneath each image? And
why is the precess of downloading high resolution versions of these public-domain works so
tortuous, with a CAPTCHA, irrelevant terms & condition, and zipped files – why not
make them available directly?" - (comment no.3)
http://blog.wellcomelibrary.org/2014/01/thousands-of-years-of-visual-cultur…
I also agree with Andy's response here - to chose option 2b - take the images that we
can, label them as PD and *politely* explain (preferably in person) why we do not legally
recognise their CC-BY claim even though we WILL make every effort to attribute properly.
While we're at it, I would point Wellcome to the Europeana PD charter
http://pro.europeana.eu/web/europeana-project/public-domain-charter-en
-Liam
wittylama.com
Peace, love & metadata
On 22 January 2014 09:42, Andy Mabbett <andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
On 21 January 2014 16:53, Magnus Manske <magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
So, we have the following options:
1. Ignore them (pity)
Not going to happen; note work-in-progress, and discussion, at:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Batch_uploading/Wellcome_Images_…
2. Upload them as public domain and re-iterate
the National Portrait Gallery
issue, and teach them that these open content wiki people are not to be
trusted
2b politely explain to WT that their licence statement is in error,
and why, and that even if people in the UK abide by it, it is
unenforceable internationally.
3. Label them CC-BY so the Wellcome Trust can get
a mandatory attribution,
which we would do anyway
No, for the reasons stated by Christoph, and in the Commons discussion
cited above. And we would not advise re-users that the attribution is
mandatory.
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
_______________________________________________
GLAM mailing list
GLAM(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
_______________________________________________
GLAM mailing list
GLAM(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam