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
* 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.
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.
Cheers,
Magnus