Wikimedia-l July 2009

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

138 participants
98 discussions

[Foundation-l] Announcing Eugene Eric Kim as the Strategy Plan Project Manager
by Sue Gardner 15 Jul '09

15 Jul '09

Hi folks, I am delighted to announce that Wikimedia's collaborative strategy development project, which was first discussed here on this list a few months ago, will be led by Eugene Eric Kim. Eugene is principal and co-founder of Blue Oxen Associates <http://blueoxen.com/>, a San Francisco-based socially-conscious consulting firm that focuses on understanding and improving how people collaborate. He's worked at all levels of the collaborative process, from strategy development to facilitation. His past clients have included People for the American Way, NASA, the Institute for International Education, Socialtext, and the Sierra Club. Eugene is also a long-time member of the Wiki community. He is the co-author of PurpleWiki, he spoke at the first Wikimania in Frankfurt, he was a keynote speaker at WikiSym 2006, and he was one of the instigators of the first RecentChangesCamp. Eugene will start today, July 13. He'll work in our San Francisco office. He will report to me, and the project's Facilitator and Research Analyst will report to him. I expect he'll take the first few weeks to catch up on the thinking that's been done so far, and you'll start hearing from him soon. We expect planning to take a few months, and the project itself will likely formally kick off shortly after Wikimania. I am thrilled to have Eugene join us for the strategy project, the Wikimedia Foundation's top priority in 2009-10. His wealth of experience and his deep understanding of our world make him a perfect partner to lead this project on our behalf. Please join me in congratulating and welcoming him. Also, my thanks to Erik Moeller and Jennifer Riggs for sitting on the hiring committee. Thanks, Sue -- Sue Gardner Executive Director Wikimedia Foundation 415 839 6885 office Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

4 5

[Foundation-l] NIH and Wikimedia Foundation collaborate to improve online health information
by Frank Schulenburg 15 Jul '09

15 Jul '09

Hi all, Every day millions of people access health information online. We have recently seen some new hard evidence of Wikipedia's growing prominence as a health information resource. The rapid development and traffic on the English Wikipedia of an article on Influenza related articles demonstrates this trend: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hourly_page_requests_influenza_%28Ap… Today, I'm very happy to announce that the first Wikipedia Academy event in the United States will take place this Thursday, July 16th at the National Institutes of Health's (NIH) headquarters in Bethesda, Maryland. The NIH includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It is the primary federal agency for conducting and supporting basic, clinical and translational medical research, and it investigates the causes, treatments and cures for both common and rare diseases. On Thursday, a team of experienced volunteer Wikipedia editors will talk about Wikimedia's mission and orient the audience to Wikipedia's structures and community policies. Medical researchers and other staff members of the NIH will learn how to contribute to Wikipedia's content and engage with other Wikipedians to further increase Wikipedia's quality and credibility. We're incredibly excited about this opportunity for increasing the quality of health-related information on Wikipedia. I believe this partnership has a huge potential and we all are very excited about the upcoming event. See also our press release: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/NIH_and_WMF_announce_fir… Thanks, Frank

5 4

[Foundation-l] Whishlist from the National Library in Norway
by John at Darkstar 14 Jul '09

14 Jul '09

I got an email from National Library in Norway and it has some interesting points. My comments are after the bulleted points. The bulleted points are my writeup from their comments, the original email was in Norwegian. Hopefully it is understandable.. :D * Backlinks to the museums themselves is important, especially so the museums can serve high resolution images or alternate images. Note that in this context there could be images with extremely high resolution, or processed images that could be part of some continued work. Imagine a 2D image of a viking helmet that really are a 3D scan, the 2D visualization is really a simplification and the 3D scan can be refined with new processing. The viking helmet is an example and is located at Kulturhistorisk museum.[1] Medium resolution images are by one source described as images in the range 800-1000px across longest axis. High resolution images could be 25Mpx and higher, one source was talking about 150Mpx. A 3D building scan combined with photographic textures could be very much more than this.[5] This is also important for us, how can we tell our users that the museums can provide additional services? To post a template isn't very dynamic, yet it somehow solves the problem. What would be very interesting is to make some kind of API that makes it possible to get additional information directly from external sites. Probably something like this should go through a white list of some kind or be sufficiently laundered to make it safe in our environment. * Send a message to a contact if a specific image is used on Wikipedia, probably also containing metadata. This kind of service probably should be some kind of RSS feed with an additional option of en email notice. Probably it should be possible to follow a RSS feed for a whole category, like "Images from National Library of Norway" or "Photos by Axel Lindahl".[2] Such a RSS feed should probably be available in a daily or weekly digest mode. But what if there is some sub category, what should then be sent as a message - "This category and 1, 2, 3 levels below?" * Geotag from Wikipedia should be available through Commons, and additional tools for adding geotags are important. Probably geotags from Wikipedia should be available through some kind of API for Commons, but this should not be confused with geotags added to the actual image itself. Changes to the Geotags should be available through some kind of RSS feed too. It seems like tools to geotag an image through features in the image is important, but I don't know if it is feasible to do that today. I know about a few algorithms that can do this, at least if they have some clue about where the photo comes from. A wild guess "Norway" will most likely fail, but it isn't unlikely that a general area of a municipality and a few additional features like the location of a church and a couple of hilltops is sufficient. I know Riksantikvarsembetet in Sweden and ABM-utvikling in Norway have talked about this, so some interest definitely exist outside our community. * Users should be able to give comments about an image or tag it, and this should be reported back to the owner. This should be independent of the use of the image at Wikipedia. This I guess is two different thing. One thing is use of the image in mashups, use in blogs, etc. For now you has to transfer the image to be able to tag it on a blog, but what they say its interesting to get the actual tagging on Commons and then the image should be mashable. The other thing they talk about are comments on the image itself, which I guess is simply an RSS feed from the talk page. They make an example about Flckr.com, but I guess Expono.com is a better example. They said that the total information from a wiki are probably more interesting for them than Flickr. Automatic tagging due to reuse is very interesting. How can we do this? It works like trackback in blogs, but would probably mean that we allow reuse of images through mashups. Imagine buttons like "post this on flckr" and similar sites, and make the information about where the image is reused available. * They wonder how and if uncategorized images could be utilized somehow. They make an example of several thousand photos taken by a German soldier during WW2 in Norway, and this is about the only thing they know about the images. Perhaps we need some statistics on usage of the uploaded archives from the German museums? Some of the images did not have sufficient information for localizing them, yet they were later located. One example is a photo from Mehavn. [3][4] I've been wondering if a service like Expono is better suited and that we can transfer images when there are something about them that makes them interesting for us. As long as we have no information it is difficult for us to utilize the image, but when we do utilize them we need to add a lot of information and that isn't easy to do in an external interface. As a side note, what if we make a dirt simple interface for adding locations to images and then let the collaborative effort filter whats usable information? Its something like "add the name of the place" and only after more than one user adds the same name it shows up in a list of possible places, perhaps overruled by a list of known locations. Note that this should be done such that it doesn't create additional workload for administrators, and that more evolved comments could be placed on the discussion page. * They wonder if an involved user would be interested in looking through the images. I believe it is better to make the images available to the community because someone has the knowledge about the images. It is more likely that the user with knowledge about the images will find them, than for us to find the user with the knowledge. But if someone find a single photo of interest, how can we use that information to find other images of interest? I think it could be interesting to upload a bunch of images where we have very little prior knowledge and then do some research on how the images are utilized. Right now we have very little knowledge about how such images are used. A project that uploads images without any information and then let the community tag and use them will probably take several years before any usefull information is gained, - but even if the process is slow it will persist and there will be available information over time. John Erling Blad /jeblad [1]http://www.khm.uio.no/bilder/presse/bilder_yngrejernalder/Cf21675_7_C27317_HM.jpg [2]http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Photos_from_Norwegian_Museum_o… [3]http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-102-0894-23… [4]http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User%3AJerazol/Bundesarchiv_-_Norske_bi… [5]http://niku.no/index.asp?strurl=//applications/system/publish/view/showObject.asp?infoobjectid=1001549&channelid=1000014&menuid=&rightbox=

1 0

Re: [Foundation-l] About that "sue and be damned" to the NationalPortrait Gallery ...
by Sue Gardner 14 Jul '09

14 Jul '09

Sure. Actually the New York chapter probably sends some press releases to US media too; I'm not sure. ------Original Message------ From: Thomas Dalton To: susanpgardner(a)gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Sent: Jul 11, 2009 10:41 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] About that "sue and be damned" to the NationalPortrait Gallery ... 2009/7/11 Sue Gardner <susanpgardner(a)gmail.com>: > Point of clarification -- the Wikimedia Foundation sends out press releases to international media, not just US media. We have no plans to send out a press release on this issue. Of course, what I meant was that only the WMF sends press releases to US media, not that the WMF only sends press releases to US media.

15 20

Re: [Foundation-l] Article: Public Domain Art in an Age of Easier Mechanical Reproducibility (Sage Ross)
by Klaus Graf 14 Jul '09

14 Jul '09

There are much morer statements than by Hamma and Hirtle, see: http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5405864/ http://hangingtogether.org/?p=692 Klaus Graf

3 3

[Foundation-l] Wikimania and the influenza A pandemic
by Patricio Lorente 13 Jul '09

13 Jul '09

Dear friends, this is an official statement fo the local team about the influenza A pandemic and the organization of Wikimania 2009. TRhank you, Patricio == English == Given the influenza A(H1N1) pandemic declared by WHO, Wikimania 2009's Organizing Committee wishes to provide information to the conference attendees regarding the spread of the virus in Argentina and the measures that resulted. In first place, we confirm that Wikimania 2009's development is not at risk, nor is considered the possibility of suspending or postponing the event. So far, as by WHO update 58 (07/06/2009), a total of 2485 lab-confirmed positives [1] and 60 deaths have been reported for influenza A(H1N1) in Argentina. In this situation, the federal and provincial governments have taken a series of preventive measures, including suspension of some public events and having brought forward the holiday period. The measures in place are not expected to continue after July, as the maximum spread of influenza A(H1N1) does coincide in the Southern Hemisphere with seasonal factors. In fact, the Buenos Aires City Government has informed on July 8 that the number of consultations and detected cases of influenza A(H1N1) had decreased sensibly [2]. All the recommendations coming from health authorities during the date of the conference will be taken into consideration. Argentina benefits from a wide public health network and the state guarantees free treatment for those with influenza A(H1N1) symptoms. WHO specifically states that "it is safe to travel", as it is scientifically proven that the effect that the travel ban could cause on the virus' propagation is negligible [3]. Please, read carefully the recommendations of WHO before travelling and follow this very simple guidelines. [4] We will inform any future development. ¡Viva Wikimanía! We are looking forward to see you all in Buenos Aires! [1] In Argentina, not every suspected case is confirmed by laboratory analysis, but only in presence of additional risk factors. [2] http://www.telam.com.ar/vernota.php?tipo=N&dis=1&sec=1&idPub=153210&id=3014… (es) [3] http://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/frequently_asked_questions/travel/e… [4] http://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/frequently_asked_questions/what/en/… == Español == Ante la pandemia de gripe A(H1N1) declarada por la OMS, el Comité Organizador de Wikimanía 2009 desea brindar información a los asistentes a la conferencia sobre la propagación del virus en la Argentina y las medidas que esto ocasionó. En primer término, aclaramos que no está en riesgo la realización de Wikimanía 2009, ni se contempla la posibilidad de su suspensión o posposición. Hasta el momento, según la actualización 58 de la OMS (06/07/2009), se han reportado en la Argentina un total de 2485 casos positivos confirmados por laboratorio[1] de gripe A(H1N1) y 60 muertos. Ante esta situación, los gobiernos nacional y provinciales han tomado una serie de medidas de prevención, como la suspensión de algunos espectáculos públicos y el adelantamiento del período vacacional. En ningún caso las medidas prevén mantenerse más allá del mes de julio, puesto que el pico de la incidencia de la gripe A(H1N1) coincide en el caso del Hemisferio Sur con el factor estacional. De hecho, el Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires informó el 8 de julio que había disminuido notoriamente la cantidad de consultas y de casos detectados de gripe A(H1N1) [2]. Se tomarán en cuenta todas las recomendaciones que emanen de las autoridades sanitarias durante la fecha de realización del evento. La Argentina dispone de una amplia red de salud pública, y el Estado asegura el tratamiento gratuito para aquellos con síntomas de gripe A(H1N1). La OMS afirma taxativamente que "es seguro viajar", en tanto está científicamente comprobado que es desdeñable el efecto que pudiera ocasionar la prohibición de viajes en la propagación del virus [3]. Por favor, lee con atención las recomendaciones de la OMS antes de viajar y sigue estas sencillas instrucciones. [4] Informaremos cualquier desarrollo sucesivo. ¡Viva Wikimanía! ¡Los esperamos en Buenos Aires! [1] En Argentina, no todos los casos sospechosos son confirmados por análisis de laboratorio, sino sólo aquellos en los que el paciente tenga factores de riesgo adicionales. [2] http://www.telam.com.ar/vernota.php?tipo=N&dis=1&sec=1&idPub=153210&id=3014… [3] http://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/frequently_asked_questions/travel/e… [4] http://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/frequently_asked_questions/what/es/… -- Patricio Lorente Mensajería Instantánea: patricio_lorente(a)jabber.org Blog: http://www.patriciolorente.com.ar

2 1

[Foundation-l] GLAM and "why use Wikimedia Commons"
by John at Darkstar 13 Jul '09

13 Jul '09

Is it possible to find some common grounds on why and how a GLAM-organization should use Wikimedia Commons? Forget about troublesome disputes with specific organizations. Why should they use us and is it possible for us to tell them how to better utilize our services? What are our services? Perhaps we need a sales department... ;) John

2 1

[Foundation-l] Has anyone been in touch with NPG yet?
by David Gerard 13 Jul '09

13 Jul '09

I was going to call NPG this morning first thing (as a volunteer, to see what could be reasonably done to avert a public battle - our own museum/gallery liaison volunteers can really, really do without a public battle fouling up their ongoing efforts) but was awake all night with a sick child and so I just got up ... has anyone here called yet, as a volunteer? I know Physchim62, who did a lot to get the American Chemical Society working with us, was going to call. Has anyone else? (I don't hold out much hope for this - the NPG's position has been completely consistent and completely uncooperative for many years.. But it's always worth asking.) It's reasonably important to avoid discussing the possible legal case, for Dcoetzee's sake, *but* the NPG's lawyers have effectively written a press release read by ten thousand Wikimedians and a million Slashdot readers, that clearly does directly and personally affect a lot of them. I bet it's been more widely read than any intentional press release of theirs has been. Ideal outcome: PD everything, they welcome a team of our photographers in. Plausible good outcome: We put up the hi-res images with notes that they are PD in the US but the NPG claims copyright in Europe and releases them under CC-by-sa, and full credit is requested in either case. (Copyleft is not as ideal as PD, but it's plenty good enough for us.) We issue press releases lauding the NPG to the skies and say nice things about them forever. Another plausible good outcome: They welcome a team of our photographers in. Careful supervision, etc. Then we can do stuff like infrared shots as well (which can show interesting things about a painting's restoration history). Awful outcome: great big legal battle. Bad outcome: mainstream press about this at all, really. The NPG probably doesn't see it that way. Any other possible outcomes to list? Additional data point: the NPG has removed the hi-res versions. Thus, the Wikimedia copies are the *only* copies currently available. This makes it actually culturally important for us to keep them up! - d.

4 4

[Foundation-l] Article: Public Domain Art in an Age of Easier Mechanical Reproducibility
by Kat Walsh 13 Jul '09

13 Jul '09

The Executive Director for Digital Policy of the J. Paul Getty Trust has written an article on digitally-reproducible works of public domain art, and museums' mission, arguing why and how museums should properly make these works as unrestrictedly available as possible -- thought people here would find it a worthwhile read: http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november05/hamma/11hamma.html -Kat The piece is CC-BY-SA-2.5, so I am including full text here: ----- Public Domain Art in an Age of Easier Mechanical Reproducibility Kenneth Hamma Exec. Dir. for Digital Policy, J. Paul Getty Trust <khamma(a)getty.edu> (This Opinion piece presents the opinions of the author. It does not necessarily reflect the views of D-Lib Magazine, its publisher, the Corporation for National Research Initiatives, or its sponsor.) In principle a work of art has always been reproducible [1]. In all the arts there is a physical component which can no longer be considered or treated as it used to be, which cannot remain unaffected by our modern knowledge and power [2]. Walter Benjamin opened his 1936 essay, Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit, with the first observation quoted above. He then extended the notion of reproducibility to suggest how it might mutate in a world that has changed since the world in which historical works had been created. Benjamin turned to Paul Valéry with the second quotation above, which continues a bit further: Just as water, gas, and electricity are brought into our houses from far off to satisfy our needs in response to a minimal effort, so we shall be supplied with visual or auditory images, which will appear and disappear at a simple movement of the hand, hardly more than a sign. Neither Benjamin nor Valéry could imagine the uses to which a copyright act might be put [3]. Nearly every art museum today asserts intellectual property rights in reproduction images of public domain works in its collection. It is argued here that placing these visual reproductions in the public domain and clearly removing all questions about their availability for use and reuse would likely cause no harm to the finances or reputation of any collecting institution, and would demonstrably contribute to the public good. As those images have become increasingly regarded as assets and as the preferred delivery venue for images has become increasingly an electronic network, the question of whether to allow free access and reproduction has become vitally important and complex. The paradigm for sharing in this context is fundamentally different from anything we have known before. The manner in which these rights might be granted, that is, the associated language and processes, may require consultation with legal counsel. Doing it, however, is not complicated by legal constraints. The choice to do so is a business decision that can be evaluated by nonprofits by measuring success against their mission. The music industry's struggle to come to terms with the Internet has over the last years dominated much of our thinking about copyright and about a communications medium that has fundamentally changed notions of distribution and use. At the heart of this industry's problems seem to have been out-of-date business models, wildly divergent values with a wish that new technology would not be used, and rebellious consumers and artists. Those same problems are already vexing non-profits with visual assets. Over time every business – including museums and libraries – will have to manage for these kinds of changes. And here the recording industry's turmoil may provide some helpful guidance. Among other things, it should instruct the non-profit world to keep in focus its business, described by a mission-based bottom line. We might well ask ourselves, what is our business/mission that is to be extended into an online environment: Is it publishing? Research? Education? Access? Commercial licensing of images? Discussion Art museums and many other collecting institutions in this country hold a trove of public-domain works of art. These are works whose age precludes continued protection under copyright law. The works are the result of and evidence for human creativity over thousands of years, an activity museums celebrate by their very existence. For reasons that seem too frequently unexamined, many museums erect barriers that contribute to keeping quality images of public domain works out of the hands of the general public, of educators, and of the general milieu of creativity. In restricting access, art museums effectively take a stand against the creativity they otherwise celebrate. This conflict arises as a result of the widely accepted practice of asserting rights in the images that the museums make of the public domain works of art in their collections. Indeed, it is not at all clear that the institutional claims of copyright to such works would survive a legal challenge. The judgment in a 1999 case, BRIDGEMAN ART LIBRARY, LTD. v. COREL CORP., brought in a U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, held that the marketing of photographic copies of two-dimensional public domain master artworks, without adding anything original, cannot constitute copyright infringement when the underlying work is in the public domain. By and large, museums have been holding their noses and hoping this ruling will neither be broadly noticed nor challenged [4]. The fact that the ruling applies only to two-dimensional works of art likely provides little relief to those museums with a traditional but persistent pecking order that goes something like: paintings, drawings, everything else. When the distribution of reproductions of art works was accomplished with film-based slides, transparencies, and printed images, the harm caused by assertion of rights in images of public domain works to the mission of these publicly supported and tax-benefited institutions was less restrictive. Obtaining an image generally required moving a physical object, a film or a paper-based image from one place to another. Although images, once acquired, could be duplicated, to some extent the quality of the reproductions was always less than the quality of the originals. The restriction imposed by the assertion of rights in images was less visible and less burdensome to the extent that physical access was an a priori constraint accepted by all parties. Similarly, violations of use were difficult to find when that use involved a physical copy. The re-use of images and copies in university slide libraries, for example, was more likely to be overlooked by museums. Today, digital images can be copied from a web site, reproduced, and widely distributed quickly, with ease and little expense. While examples of museums chasing down digital image miscreants are rare to non-existent, the expectation that museums might do so has had a stultifying effect on the development of digital image libraries for teaching and research. In the online world, the assertion of rights either prevents the provision of images entirely or results in providing images that are marked in some way or are of low quality. Low resolution makes them useless for most uses. Because the Internet allows and encourages flow of information unlimited by a gatekeeper, museums choose to restrict access, not wishing to undermine their financial potential for commercial licensing. This resistance to free and unfettered access may well result from a seemingly well-grounded concern: many museums assume that an important part of their core business is the acquisition and management of rights in art works to maximum return on investment. That might be true in the case of the recording industry, but it should not be true for nonprofit institutions holding public domain art works; it is not even their secondary business. Indeed, restricting access seems all the more inappropriate when measured against a museum's mission – a responsibility to provide public access. Their charitable, financial, and tax-exempt status demands such. The assertion of rights in public domain works of art – images that at their best closely replicate the values of the original work – differs in almost every way from the rights managed by the recording industry. Because museums and other similar collecting institutions are part of the private nonprofit sector, the obligation to treat assets as held in public trust should replace the for-profit goal [5]. To do otherwise, undermines the very nature of what such institutions were created to do. Some art museums may generate a significant portion of revenues through commercial licensing of images of works in their collections, and that revenue may be vital for their continued operations. However, we have little to no data on the extent to which such revenues really currently support museum operations. There are no publicly available figures derived from any survey of net revenue generated by individual museums as a percentage of operating costs [6]. Neither is there good information on what percentage of revenues is based on public domain works or what percentage comes from works still under copyright constraints. We know even less about the costs associated with the generation of such revenue, monitoring infringement, and enforcing grievances – something traditionally ignored in the income analysis of nonprofits [7]. Answering these questions would provide insight as to whether there is enough revenue to be worried about. If the hope for significant commercial licensing revenue diminishes easy access to quality images for education and research, we might be tempted to ask, how much income justifies the diminution of the institution's mission driven goals? As seductive as the finance question is, the answer lies first in a policy choice for each museum. Nonetheless, it may also lie in a public policy choice with respect to the definition of the private nonprofit sector. Are there other revenue possibilities that have been overlooked because of the focus on commercial licensing? For example, it is clear that the public visibility of and familiarity with works of art generates interest in those works. That interest contributes to the revenues realized from entrance fees as well as bookstore and cafeteria sales. This generation of revenue is visible in the persistent use of images of well-known works in many venues as advertisements to drive traffic to the museum's front door. Why else would the paraphernalia that travels under the banner of King Tut return – yet again? The widespread distribution of images ultimately increases attendance at the museum. While the reasons for prohibiting the distribution of quality images online are frequently founded in an intention, however unrealistic, to benefit from their potential commercial exploitation, there exists as well the notion of controlling the proper educational and proper creative use of those images. This notion derives from something of a paternalistic stance by museums that has existed for more than a century, that they alone can properly interpret the works in their collections. By attempting to hold works of art within an institutional voice, the single interpretation has often effectively isolated those works from a more engaged public experience. This topic is much discussed today in many museums (also now with respect to audio tours), and while there has been a broad attempt to come to terms with the notion of single institutional voice, most museums continue to control all voices but their own by their restriction in the use of images of their works. What else motivates the notion of a proper use of images of works of art? Museums argue that the value of the original work diminishes in some way with familiarity – the kind of familiarity that might be brought on by the lack of appropriate explanation and context setting, by subsequent creative use, and by any creative use that may not be considered flattering to the collecting institution. But the net effect of experience with commercial and creative reuses of an image can best be demonstrated by looking to the Mona Lisa. When viewing the Mona Lisa at the Louvre, do we laugh at Leonardo da Vinci's famous painting because others have made a long career of spinning off wall paper, cookie jars, cigar bands, and so on, that use the reproduced image of the Mona Lisa? Do we fail to react to the mysterious Mona Lisa smile in the painting because we've seen her smile so often and so ubiquitously in other contexts? Museums' collections of public domain art, along with images of public domain works in libraries and archives, represent a public trust, a public commons of cultural heritage. While we currently do not find it odd to be asked to pay for access to an online library of digital images of public domain works of art, we would find it untenable to have to pay for such access upon entering a library to consult public domain materials. And while each museum must establish its own values, most such institutions would readily agree that their values fundamentally include concern for the past and future of ideas and creativity as they relate to the objects they shepherd. An institutional analysis of income might suggest, museum by museum, that the take at the front gate far outweighs or could far outweigh all net licensing revenues. Would it not, then, be reasonable to put high quality images of public domain art back into the public domain, unfettered and unrestricted for all? Would it not be in everyone's better interest to make it easy to share these resources, such as using the Internet to provide access to them for public education and benefit? While looked at through the lens of potential commercial licensing income, this may seem too trivial an issue to consume leadership time, but looked at through the lens of a healthy public commons for creativity, there may be no easier or better service for museum leaders to provide. Epilogue This article has argued that making visual reproductions of public domain art works available for use and reuse without charge would likely benefit the collecting institutions and would contribute to the public good. Nevertheless, there are several possible secondary consequences of acting on this proposal. To a large extent, those consequences are unpredictable even though they may be anticipated. Any individual museum that unilaterally withdraws its assertions of intellectual property rights in images of public domain works, which seems the most likely starting point for any change in policy, may earn a reputation of having effectively undermined the assumed future potential for all fine arts image providers. To most users of images, one Monet is pretty much like another for a DVD cover that is to be mainly blue and green. One Boucher may be much like the next for a Mother's Day greeting card. For these purposes, an unencumbered image is much more likely to be used – by almost everyone – than one available for use under license and with restrictions. A large institution may be accused of using its size and power to undercut others with some variation of "they could do this because they have revenues from tickets or their bookstore or endowment." While that argument would not be a particularly meaningful response to the policy issue at hand, it might be effective spin. On the other hand, a potential upside may coincide well with a closely related issue, namely promoting the management of and respect for intellectual property rights in works that are not in the public domain. Permitting an enormous wealth of images of finely crafted works to circulate freely may act as something of a pressure release – assuming at least some pent-up public demand for available images. More importantly, if properly handled, this opportunity to increase the public domain could focus attention on intellectual property rights in a very positive way, creating an opportunity for any museum to explain the value of respecting rights for works still under copyright. The current time frame for copyright may seem a long time, but it is an appropriately ephemeral period of control compared to the unlimited time span implicit in most current museum practice. Easy and unfettered access seems likely to make a museum's collection online a more attractive and consequently more used resource. That attractiveness might be leveraged into revenue by providing opportunities within a general public view of the collection online to acquire – for a fee – cards, posters, and other products. It is true that without the exclusivity guaranteed by intellectual property control, other market forces may come to bear. But aren't those forces already familiar and similar to those that affect the popularity of a museum's collections and exhibitions in a larger world of education and of leisure time activities? Obviously these opportunities are available to museums only because of the Internet, where a mouse click is Valéry's conjecture that "we shall be supplied with visual or auditory images, which will appear and disappear at a simple movement of the hand..." Acknowledgement This piece has been contributed in memory of the late Stephen Weil, former Deputy Director, Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden and scholar emeritus, Center for Education and Museum Studies, Smithsonian Institution, who passed away in August 2005. Notes and References [1] Walter Benjamin, Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit. [2] Paul Valéry, Pièces sur l'art, (Le conquête de l'ubiquité). [3] "What we have right now is an exponentially expanding intellectual land grab, a land grab that is not only bad but dumb, about which the progressive community is largely silent, the center overly sanguine, and the right wing short-sighted." James Boyle, Shamans, Software and Spleens: Law and the Construction of the Information Society (1966). [4] BRIDGEMAN ART LIBRARY, LTD. v. COREL CORP., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) <http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/36_FSupp2d_191.htm> and <http://www.panix.com/~squigle/rarin/corel2.html> which reveals a very interesting response from one part of the museum community. [5] While the revenue streams from image licensing hardly rise to the bar set by the merchandizing activities of the most ambitious of museum stores, which has been a point for questioning tax-exempt status, its impact on access and so on mission is arguably greater and might be more visible in discussions of nonprofit sector policy as, e.g., introductory chapter of Marion R. Fremont-Smith, Governing Nonprofit Organizations, 2004 (pp. 1-18). [6] The most recent study on this was commissioned by the Mellon Foundation and delivered by Simon Tanner for King's Digital Consultancy Services, Reproduction charging models and rights policy for digital images in American art museums, 2004, which pointed to 56 of 100 museums with budgets over $10 million receiving less than $50,000 annually from digital rights transactions. This study did not address the policy issue of this paper – except to ask museums if unauthorized use of images of public domain works constituted 'fair use' (p. 31) – but limited its conclusions to managing rights services, pricing structures and revenue. Previous studies have tended to focus on the revenue potential of image licensing without regard to the status of the intellectual property in the underlying work. For example, The Marketing Works, Like Light Through a Prism: Analyzing Commercial Markets for Cultural Heritage Content, January 1999, and Glen Bloom, An Analysis of Economic Models for Administering Museum Intellectual Property, March 1997, "In addition to serving their traditional role of making their collections available to the public, particularly by licensing their images, museums may be able to capitalize on the value of their collections..." [7] The Tanner report cited above notes, p. 35, "Everyone interviewed wants to recoup costs but almost none claimed to actually achieve or expected to achieve this." And "Even those services that claimed to recoup full costs generally did not account fully for salary costs or overhead expenses." This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. To view a copy of this license, visit <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/> or send a letter to Creative Commons, 543 Howard Street, 5th Floor, San Francisco, California 94105, USA. ---- -- Your donations keep Wikipedia online: http://donate.wikimedia.org/en Wikimedia, Press: kat(a)wikimedia.org * Personal: kat(a)mindspillage.org http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage * (G)AIM:Mindspillage mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net * email for phone

3 2

[Foundation-l] GLAM in Holland
by Gerard Meijssen 12 Jul '09

12 Jul '09

Hoi, I am saddened about the current situation about the National Portrait Gallery and the high resolution pictures that were lifted from its website. The problem that I have is in the vocabulary used, it paints the NPG as our enemy and we are to use pitch forks and fiery speeches to make them aware of our displeasure and our wish to fight. It is sad because it is exactly the kind of rhetoric that may damage our budding relations with GLAM in for instance the Netherlands. (GLAM is galleries libraries archives museums). There is much happening in the Netherlands when it comes to the collections of GLAM. There are limited subsidies for digitising material and this is happening. Much of the material becomes available on the Internet. We are talking and have been talking for many months about sharing and using our digital heritage on Commons and Wikipedia. There have been talks with national organisations and individual museums. There are many powerful arguments why we want to partner with GLAM. - we need many illustrations for our Wikipedias and we want to have a choice of illustrations for all our Wikipedias - it is important that we have provenance for our illustrations, not just for copyright reasons but particularly to prove the value as an illustration - photoshop or gimp can give a picture a whole new meaning - by partnering with GLAM we open their world to our communities, Wiki loves art is one project that shows that we can - by prartnering with GLAM we gain in respectability Recently I have been blogging about our budding relation with the Tropen museum. We are looking at an initial upload of some 100.000 illustrations that are of particular relevance to our Indonesian projects. These illustrations will become available at a similar resolution as the ones of the Bundesarchiv. They will be old photos and other flat techniques but also photos of three dimensional objects. We are talking on how we can grow the relation in the future. We talked about releasing high resolution scans of material that needs restoration, we talked about their object of the month project.. There are two other GLAM that we are talking to at the moment. They are as relevant as the Tropen musuem. I am fearful about the development of our relation with them and with the development of the national organisations. I am saddened because I fear that it will now be not as easy to develop all these relations. Thanks, GerardM

2 2

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Older →

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Wikimedia-l July 2009