Right now there are 1,300 images in [[Category:Images from Library and Archives Canada]]. While many are PD, many others have been tagged as {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} due to some ambiguous language on the LAC website. Last fall I emailed them to ask about this, and they finally replied - turns out my suspicion was correct, and our current use violates their license.
Is there someone I should be forwarding this to? Assuming they are right, some mass deletions are in order. Curiously, they also seem to be asserting control over those images which are now PD.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Copyright /droit_d'auteur <copyright/droit_d'auteur@lac-bac.gc.cadroit_d%27auteur@lac-bac.gc.ca
Date: 2008/5/4 Subject: Images on Wikepedia Website To: Cc: Copyright /droit_d'auteur <copyright/droit_d'auteur@lac-bac.gc.cadroit_d%27auteur@lac-bac.gc.ca
Dear Mr. Ryan,
Your request for information concerning the possibility to upload Library and Archives Canada images on the Wikipedia website has been referred to my attention. I had previously been contacted by another representative of your website and am answering your request along the same lines as that provided to Mr. Harden on October 22, 2007. I believed that both your requests were related and therefore initially answered only Mr. Harden. However, to close the query in our system, I am providing an independent reply to your query as well.
I have reviewed the Wikipedia website to determine the type of permissions which are granted to your users for material which is posted on your website. The terms of re-use of material which appears on your website, specifically granting permission to modify or create derivative products, does not meet our criteria to ensure that the authenticity of the original material which comes from our collections is retained. Additionally, the terms of re-use on your website state that the material can be copied and distributed directly from your website. Library and Archives Canada requires that we be contacted for any re-use of our original material and we supply the copies of the material to ensure that the authenticity is retained. This is achieved by licensing on a "one-time" use only. Any subsequent use or re-use of our material is subject to a separate license.
We are in the process of attempting to have material from our collections removed from your website which had been licensed for a specific purpose, which did not include posting on your website. Our material which is posted on your website is being advertised as having no restrictions, when in fact, there are restrictions with all our licenses, especially concerning modification and re-distribution. The various disclaimers posted on your website, relieving Wikipedia of such activities by its contributors, leads us to believe that no remedial action can be taken by Wikipedia in such instances. Taking all these factors into consideration, we are therefore not in a position to encourage posting of material from our collections on the Wikipedia website at this time. Should the terms of use on your website be modified, we would then re-examine this request and reconsider the possibility of granting a permission.
Should you have any questions with respect to this request, please do not hesitate to contact me directly.
Sincerely,
Thank you, *****Carole Cloutier* A/Manager Copyright Bureau, Services Branch Library and Archives Canada Tel: 613-992-2567 / Fax: 613-996-1341 Email: copyright/droit_d'auteur@lac-bac.gc.cadroit_d%27auteur@lac-bac.gc.ca Website: www.collectionscanada.ca
2008/5/4 Padraic Ryan user.padraic@gmail.com:
Curiously, they also seem to be asserting control over those images which are now PD.
Not curious at all. Canadian museums earned more money licensing public domain material than non PD material last year.
Padraic Ryan wrote:
Right now there are 1,300 images in [[Category:Images from Library and Archives Canada]]. While many are PD, many others have been tagged as {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} due to some ambiguous language on the LAC website. Last fall I emailed them to ask about this, and they finally replied - turns out my suspicion was correct, and our current use violates their license.
Is there someone I should be forwarding this to? Assuming they are right, some mass deletions are in order. Curiously, they also seem to be asserting control over those images which are now PD.
Have you considered that they are wrong in their interpretation of the copyright status? As far as I know, Canada has the rule of 70y pma and therefore all the images I reviewed just now are in the public domain. They can ask, demand and what ever, nothing they can do give them any right to determine the use of those images.
Ciao Henning
Copyright claims from museum and libraries mean absolutely nothing in the general case. Their websites tend to tag copyright claims on everything and anything, including public domain work. One should not take it as these claims have any sort of substance -- nor that they do not: you just can't tell.
From the point of view of museums, it costs nothing to claim ownership of
public domain material. Noone will sue them for this, and it saves them the trouble of sorting which work to tag with what. Of course this hinders diffusion of culture and knowledge among the public, but museums usually intend to sell tickets, postcards and licences. Culture is a pretext and cover -- pretty much like information is a pretext to newspapers and television to feed the public with insignificant and sensationalist anecdotes of dubious merit and truth value, in order to sell advertisment.
The only thing that we can say with confidance is that if law and museum copyright notices contradict each other, law wins. -- Rama
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 9:59 AM, Rama Neko ramaneko@gmail.com wrote:
Copyright claims from museum and libraries mean absolutely nothing in the general case. Their websites tend to tag copyright claims on everything and anything, including public domain work. One should not take it as these claims have any sort of substance -- nor that they do not: you just can't tell.
How does Bridgeman vs Corel Art. Library (or a comparable case) holds up in this discussion? In the US there is a very clear legal precedent on what to do with photographic reproductions of two-dimensional PD works, but i'm not sure if that is the same in Canada. It differs per country, for example, in Germany it is the same as in the US, in the UK it is completely the opposite and in the Netherlands it's a bit 'in limbo', so to speak.
Seeing that the majority of pictures are photographs, that is probably in our advantage because a photograph is a reproduction in itself. However, there a few drawings in the category.
If that hasn't happened yet, i think it would be very wise to contact Mike Godwin as well about this case.
-- Hay / Husky
How does Bridgeman vs Corel Art. Library (or a comparable case) holds up in this discussion?
There are two problems:
1) Bridgeman vs Corel applies in the USA only, as you pointed out. In a large number of countries it is difficult to know whether a photograph will be considered to be a reproduction, and to yield copyright or not. The USA are a favourable exception in this respect. Some countries will make a distinction between photographs and "mere reproduction by technical means", the former yielding copyright but not the later.
2) In lots of cases, it is difficult to know whether the original work in copyrighted or not. This is the case of works by unspecified authors ("unspecified", not "anonymous"), or works by people whose date of death is unknown. There are cases in which uncertainty as to these results in a de facto lengtening of the copyright. For instance, a semi-famous French photographer is not in the public domain, but before his death, an edition company was founded, which has published photographs under his name since; hence it is clear that the most recent photographs cannot possibly be in the public domain; but also all works published under this photographer's name in his later years are suspicious and unusable. I would go as far as to suspect that some people make information deliberately difficult to find for this reason.
-- Rama
There definitely are many images from LAC on Wikimedia which are not PD - I'm sure many of them also aren't tagged with {{LAC}}, or aren't on Commons, but Canadian history articles are full of LAC images which are too new.
From the second page of [[category:Images from Library and Archives
Canada]]: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Ben_Johnson_Seoul_1988.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:BrianOrser1988Olympics.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:FlorenceBird.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Jean_Chretien.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Kim_Campbell.jpg
Given how these are all from the 1980s, I don't see how they could be PD.
If LAC is illegally asserting copyright over PD images, then I agree that we should ignore them. However, there are clearly uploaders out there who are under the impression that LAC has grant copyrighted free use, when it has not.
2008/5/4 Henning Schlottmann h.schlottmann@gmx.net:
Padraic Ryan wrote:
Right now there are 1,300 images in [[Category:Images from Library and Archives Canada]]. While many are PD, many others have been tagged as {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} due to some ambiguous language on the LAC
website.
Last fall I emailed them to ask about this, and they finally replied -
turns
out my suspicion was correct, and our current use violates their
license.
Is there someone I should be forwarding this to? Assuming they are
right,
some mass deletions are in order. Curiously, they also seem to be
asserting
control over those images which are now PD.
Have you considered that they are wrong in their interpretation of the copyright status? As far as I know, Canada has the rule of 70y pma and therefore all the images I reviewed just now are in the public domain. They can ask, demand and what ever, nothing they can do give them any right to determine the use of those images.
Ciao Henning
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
FYI, I have nominated several hundred non-PD images for deletion: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Library_and_Arch...
I agree with the sentiment that we'll leave it to LAC if they want to make the case for control of the PD images.
Padraic
2008/5/4 Padraic Ryan user.padraic@gmail.com:
Right now there are 1,300 images in [[Category:Images from Library and Archives Canada]]. While many are PD, many others have been tagged as {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} due to some ambiguous language on the LAC website. Last fall I emailed them to ask about this, and they finally replied - turns out my suspicion was correct, and our current use violates their license.
Is there someone I should be forwarding this to? Assuming they are right, some mass deletions are in order. Curiously, they also seem to be asserting control over those images which are now PD.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Copyright /droit_d'auteur <copyright/droit_d'auteur@lac-bac.gc.cadroit_d%27auteur@lac-bac.gc.ca
Date: 2008/5/4 Subject: Images on Wikepedia Website To: Cc: Copyright /droit_d'auteur <copyright/droit_d'auteur@lac-bac.gc.cadroit_d%27auteur@lac-bac.gc.ca
Dear Mr. Ryan,
Your request for information concerning the possibility to upload Library and Archives Canada images on the Wikipedia website has been referred to my attention. I had previously been contacted by another representative of your website and am answering your request along the same lines as that provided to Mr. Harden on October 22, 2007. I believed that both your requests were related and therefore initially answered only Mr. Harden. However, to close the query in our system, I am providing an independent reply to your query as well.
I have reviewed the Wikipedia website to determine the type of permissions which are granted to your users for material which is posted on your website. The terms of re-use of material which appears on your website, specifically granting permission to modify or create derivative products, does not meet our criteria to ensure that the authenticity of the original material which comes from our collections is retained. Additionally, the terms of re-use on your website state that the material can be copied and distributed directly from your website. Library and Archives Canada requires that we be contacted for any re-use of our original material and we supply the copies of the material to ensure that the authenticity is retained. This is achieved by licensing on a "one-time" use only. Any subsequent use or re-use of our material is subject to a separate license.
We are in the process of attempting to have material from our collections removed from your website which had been licensed for a specific purpose, which did not include posting on your website. Our material which is posted on your website is being advertised as having no restrictions, when in fact, there are restrictions with all our licenses, especially concerning modification and re-distribution. The various disclaimers posted on your website, relieving Wikipedia of such activities by its contributors, leads us to believe that no remedial action can be taken by Wikipedia in such instances. Taking all these factors into consideration, we are therefore not in a position to encourage posting of material from our collections on the Wikipedia website at this time. Should the terms of use on your website be modified, we would then re-examine this request and reconsider the possibility of granting a permission.
Should you have any questions with respect to this request, please do not hesitate to contact me directly.
Sincerely,
Thank you, *****Carole Cloutier* A/Manager Copyright Bureau, Services Branch Library and Archives Canada Tel: 613-992-2567 / Fax: 613-996-1341 Email: copyright/droit_d'auteur@lac-bac.gc.cadroit_d%27auteur@lac-bac.gc.ca Website: www.collectionscanada.ca
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Padraic http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Padraic http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Padraic http://wikitravel.org/en/User:Padraic