On 22/03/2009, at 11:57 PM, Magnus Manske wrote:
2009/3/22 Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt(a)gmail.com>om>:
Our insistence that "we
don't have to, it's PD" only makes us look silly and them less
likely to
want to work with us. Meeting their requirements would be a good
thing to
do.
So, I ask that when we copy images from galleries/museums/
libraries, or even
when we take photos of the originals ourselves, we include the
comprehensive
attribution that the gallery/museum itself includes. I would
suggest that
this should be the Commons policy when dealing with art.
I doubt that anyone on Commons would want to prevent inclusion of
available metadata in the description.
The only reasons why this is not done I can see are:
* lazyness
This is something that we cannot control nor regulate against,
unfortunately :-)
* a museum might not hold the copyright to a picture,
but it could
argue to hold copyright to the description, especially if it's
substantive. People might hesitate to copy that unless it is clearly
allowed.
Yes, the prose description is the Gallery's copyright, we can't
copy
that. But I'm referring to the metadata information (which Galleries
insist is required for full/accurate attribution).
For example:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sunbaker_maxdupain_nga76.54.jpg
English: Sunbaker is an iconic photograph by Australian photographer
Max Dupain.
Source
http://artsearch.nga.gov.au/Detail.cfm?IRN=102513
Max DUPAIN
Australia 1911 - 1992
Sunbaker 1937
gelatin silver photograph
image 38.6 x 43.4 cm
sheet 52.8 x 55.0 cm
National Gallery of Australia, Canberra.
Accn No: NGA 76.54
2) Fair-use
vs. {{self}}.
Later in the meeting I was directed to look at two images:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Warlugulong.jpg
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
File:Margaret_olley_still_life_1975.JPG
Both of these paintings are in the Australian National Gallery
collection,
both are self-made photographs taken by a visitor to the gallery,
both are
uploaded to en:Wikipedia and the subject matter of both are in
copyright.
However, one is listed as a fair-use claim whilst the other is
listed as
Public Domain by virtue of the photographer releasing the photo
under that
license. The question is, which copyright licence is correct?
An image apparently made in 1975 is not public domain, unless the
author declares it to be.
Can't tell about the other one.
The original painting is certainly NOT public domain - but what about
the copyright status of a photograph that you or I might take of that
painting? That is the question.
Cheers,
Magnus
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
-Liam Wyatt
email: liamwyatt(a)gmail.com
skype: wittylama
wikipedia: [[user:witty lama]]