http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2029367/fate-u...
Early reports of destruction may have been too bold. But the motivation was the potential for crippling lawsuits by the photographers under French law -- one of whom won ~$2M from Sygma when Sygma could not produce 750 of his images.
I fully support the idea of helping archives in distress, but it's not clear what is needed in this case, or if help from us would be valuable. (an archive that specializes in digitization might be more relevant; and a project like the Internet Archive that hosts and shares orphaned works.)
SJ
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2011/02/sygma-collection-needs-refuge.ht...
From: Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com
http://blog.melchersystem.com/2011/02/25/the-fire-this-time/
12 Million Photographs are to be destroyed because liquidators cant find a buyer?
these arent just random landscape photos, these are photos are from the fench news agency Sygma
Wikimedia-france, Jimbo, any chance they could find their way to Commons rather than just being destroyed and lost for ever.......
-- GN. Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Gn. Blogg: http://gnangarra.wordpress.com
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Internal-l mailing list Internal-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-l
Internal-l mailing list Internal-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-l
Internal-l mailing list Internal-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-l
http://www.lalettredelaphotographie.com/entries/736-rolls-of-film-by-gilles-...
This article is probably the source of the news. It contains much more interesting details.
If the situation stays as is, destruction is going to happen anyway, and not necessarily by throwing them into a huge bonfire: if they are moved into improper storage, they will rot and decay. Corbis won't bear the costs of special storage forever.
Until there is some legislation regarding the licensing of orphaned works, I doubt that any museum or archives would be interested in getting hold of them (they have enough orphaned works of their own). Instead you'll have other photography agencies, who can distribute and license the images and "save" the royalties for photographers, if they ever come claiming their cheques. But according to the article, even agencies don't seem to get any reply from the liquidator.
Did anyone try to contact them and get detailed information? We still don't have all the details.
I think that the WMF can still play some part here, and that is the so called "spreading awareness". I think that bringing up the issue of orphaned works could win us points with the GLAM community, and could also be good PR for us too: "The Wikimedia Foundation calls on lawmakers to save world heritage", "The Wikimedia Foundation spearheads attempt to save 50 years of world history" or similar titles would be great for our image. This issue can also be used to point out why we need to promote free content, why we need better copyright laws, why corporations active in fields of culture should assume more responsibility etc. It's relevant in so many ways.
On 8 March 2011 05:55, Orionist orion.ist@gmail.com wrote:
I think that the WMF can still play some part here, and that is the so called "spreading awareness". I think that bringing up the issue of orphaned works could win us points with the GLAM community, and could also be good PR for us too: "The Wikimedia Foundation calls on lawmakers to save world heritage", "The Wikimedia Foundation spearheads attempt to save 50 years of world history" or similar titles would be great for our image. This issue can also be used to point out why we need to promote free content, why we need better copyright laws, why corporations active in fields of culture should assume more responsibility etc. It's relevant in so many ways.
+1 on that. However... The Wikimedia Foundation has specifically decided (someone correct me if I have misunderstood) that it is not going to get involved in political lobbying unless it is absolutely necessary (e.g. if there was a threat to the WMF's ability to host without being legally liable for individual contributions, in which case Google etc. would be involved too). However, advocacy does fall very much within the scope of the Chapters' remit. Defending the user's perspective in legislative/popular debates around the world is definitely a field that, though not sexy or fast-moving, the Wikimedia Chapters could get involved with in the future.
In this case it would seem the most logical step on the advocacy side of things would be to see if Wikimedia France has the time/capacity/interest to take the lead in this case and try and raise some media attention to the issues of Orphan works as exemplified by the Corbis case.
-Liam
wittylama.com/blog Peace, love & metadata
Why just WM-fr surely other chapters could also use the Corbis case
On 8 March 2011 14:15, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 March 2011 05:55, Orionist orion.ist@gmail.com wrote:
I think that the WMF can still play some part here, and that is the so called "spreading awareness". I think that bringing up the issue of orphaned works could win us points with the GLAM community, and could also be good PR for us too: "The Wikimedia Foundation calls on lawmakers to save world heritage", "The Wikimedia Foundation spearheads attempt to save 50 years of world history" or similar titles would be great for our image. This issue can also be used to point out why we need to promote free content, why we need better copyright laws, why corporations active in fields of culture should assume more responsibility etc. It's relevant in so many ways.
+1 on that. However... The Wikimedia Foundation has specifically decided (someone correct me if I have misunderstood) that it is not going to get involved in political lobbying unless it is absolutely necessary (e.g. if there was a threat to the WMF's ability to host without being legally liable for individual contributions, in which case Google etc. would be involved too). However, advocacy does fall very much within the scope of the Chapters' remit. Defending the user's perspective in legislative/popular debates around the world is definitely a field that, though not sexy or fast-moving, the Wikimedia Chapters could get involved with in the future.
In this case it would seem the most logical step on the advocacy side of things would be to see if Wikimedia France has the time/capacity/interest to take the lead in this case and try and raise some media attention to the issues of Orphan works as exemplified by the Corbis case.
-Liam
wittylama.com/blog Peace, love & metadata
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
On 8 March 2011 07:38, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
Why just WM-fr surely other chapters could also use the Corbis case
Of course WM-Fr isn't the ONLY Chapter than could do this, but given this is a French case they are best placed to be able to get attention brought to the issue. If other chapters are willing/able to get involved in this subject then they are very welcome to do so!
-Liam
wittylama.com/blog Peace, love & metadata