In a message dated 9/27/2009 1:29:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time, wiki-lists@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
I have a reproduction of Rembrandt's "Toby and Anna" whilst that doesn't give the producer of the reproduction the right to stop me making copies from it, it also doesn't give me or you some bizarre right to demand digital files from the producer.>>
Are we demanding? Or are we just taking without permission?
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 9/27/2009 1:29:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time, wiki-lists@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
I have a reproduction of Rembrandt's "Toby and Anna" whilst that doesn't give the producer of the reproduction the right to stop me making copies from it, it also doesn't give me or you some bizarre right to demand digital files from the producer.>>
Are we demanding? Or are we just taking without permission?
From the earlier poster Teofilo:
I disagree. I think the priority is to have the full resolution pictures of Public Domain works.
That seems to be a demand to have the highest resolution copies possible.
In any case your earlier assertion that there was a Supreme Court decision covering this is wrong. Bridgeman vs Corel was decided at District Court level. Be aware that courts are quite capable of deciding to allow an action that they approve of (making a digital copy of an analog copy), and disallowing a similar action that they disapprove of. And no more so than in the realm of copyright Corel simply obtained their copies by raiding Bridgeman's computer files, you could well find that decision reversed. There is a quantitative difference between what Corel did and MGET *.jpg
2009/9/28 wiki-lists@phizz.demon.co.uk:
From the earlier poster Teofilo: I disagree. I think the priority is to have the full resolution pictures of Public Domain works. That seems to be a demand to have the highest resolution copies possible.
That sets it out as a goal, not a demand.
But getting back to the case in question - we're talking about the sort of museum that's actually a government sub-department. Thus, public domain images that the taxpayer has *already paid for*. I see nothing whatsoever unreasonable about the idea of asking-to-demanding those. They're owned by the public, not by the museum bureaucrats.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
2009/9/28 wiki-lists@phizz.demon.co.uk:
From the earlier poster Teofilo: I disagree. I think the priority is to have the full resolution pictures of Public Domain works. That seems to be a demand to have the highest resolution copies possible.
That sets it out as a goal, not a demand.
But getting back to the case in question - we're talking about the sort of museum that's actually a government sub-department. Thus, public domain images that the taxpayer has *already paid for*. I see nothing whatsoever unreasonable about the idea of asking-to-demanding those. They're owned by the public, not by the museum bureaucrats.
In defense of museums, some of them do get it. The images of golden artifacts from the Staffordshire Hoard were immediately released under a CC license:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/finds/sets/72157622378376316/with/3944490322/
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Hoi, The question is if they get it. As it is published for the first time they could claim copyright. Thanks, GerardM
2009/9/28 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com
David Gerard wrote:
2009/9/28 wiki-lists@phizz.demon.co.uk:
From the earlier poster Teofilo: I disagree. I think the priority is to have the full resolution pictures of Public Domain works. That seems to be a demand to have the highest resolution copies
possible.
That sets it out as a goal, not a demand.
But getting back to the case in question - we're talking about the sort of museum that's actually a government sub-department. Thus, public domain images that the taxpayer has *already paid for*. I see nothing whatsoever unreasonable about the idea of asking-to-demanding those. They're owned by the public, not by the museum bureaucrats.
In defense of museums, some of them do get it. The images of golden artifacts from the Staffordshire Hoard were immediately released under a CC license:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/finds/sets/72157622378376316/with/3944490322/
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro@gmail.com
wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
2009/9/28 wiki-lists@phizz.demon.co.uk:
From the earlier poster Teofilo: I disagree. I think the priority is to have the full resolution pictures of Public Domain works. That seems to be a demand to have the highest resolution copies
possible.
That sets it out as a goal, not a demand.
But getting back to the case in question - we're talking about the sort of museum that's actually a government sub-department. Thus, public domain images that the taxpayer has *already paid for*. I see nothing whatsoever unreasonable about the idea of asking-to-demanding those. They're owned by the public, not by the museum bureaucrats.
In defense of museums, some of them do get it. The images of golden artifacts from the Staffordshire Hoard were immediately released under a CC license:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/finds/sets/72157622378376316/with/3944490322/
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Very interesting that you should raise the Staffordshire Hoard images as an example. When they were first uploaded they were done so with a cc-by license and therefore were copied across to Wikimedia Commons. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Staffordshire_hoard.jpg and appeard on the frontpage of en.wp as the "in the news" image. However, subsequently, the images were relicensed to cc-by-nc. Since we managed to get them when they were indeed cc-by our copies are legal (as mentioned at the bottom of our image page at the link I just gave). But it's an interesting that you should raise that one as an example :-)
Also in defence of Museums, I can say very confidently that they are all working through the tough decisions about changing licenses and coming to grapple with this issue that we are so passionate about. Museums are a bit like ducks: it looks like nothing is happening when you just look at a duck floating in a pond, but underneath the water there is a lot of work going on to move it forward - you just can't see it.
A positive experience of a Museum that we in Australia have been working with is the "Powerhouse Museum". They wanted to make their content more open but the discussion about changing the license of images of objects is a long and complicated one that is still ongoing. So, they changed the license to something that they *know* they own the rights to - the documentation. See their post about it here: http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/dmsblog/index.php/2009/04/02/powerhouse-coll... think this a fantastic step and possibly even more valuable than the images themselves. And, is one step in a broader strategy of encouraging openness.
-Liam [[witty lama]]
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
But they have not changed the license to the pictures. What they have only done is changed the rights to part of the documentation: the basic info needed to say what it is is CC-BY-SA, which is very good, the long explanation and provenance information is NC, which is acceptable. I fail to see how this is more valuable than the images themselves. As the free part is only factual information, anyone could use it to write an equivalent description.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 12:45 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro@gmail.com
wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
2009/9/28 wiki-lists@phizz.demon.co.uk:
From the earlier poster Teofilo: I disagree. I think the priority is to have the full resolution pictures of Public Domain works. That seems to be a demand to have the highest resolution copies
possible.
That sets it out as a goal, not a demand.
But getting back to the case in question - we're talking about the sort of museum that's actually a government sub-department. Thus, public domain images that the taxpayer has *already paid for*. I see nothing whatsoever unreasonable about the idea of asking-to-demanding those. They're owned by the public, not by the museum bureaucrats.
In defense of museums, some of them do get it. The images of golden artifacts from the Staffordshire Hoard were immediately released under a CC license:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/finds/sets/72157622378376316/with/3944490322/
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Very interesting that you should raise the Staffordshire Hoard images as an example. When they were first uploaded they were done so with a cc-by license and therefore were copied across to Wikimedia Commons. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Staffordshire_hoard.jpg and appeard on the frontpage of en.wp as the "in the news" image. However, subsequently, the images were relicensed to cc-by-nc. Since we managed to get them when they were indeed cc-by our copies are legal (as mentioned at the bottom of our image page at the link I just gave). But it's an interesting that you should raise that one as an example :-)
Also in defence of Museums, I can say very confidently that they are all working through the tough decisions about changing licenses and coming to grapple with this issue that we are so passionate about. Museums are a bit like ducks: it looks like nothing is happening when you just look at a duck floating in a pond, but underneath the water there is a lot of work going on to move it forward - you just can't see it.
A positive experience of a Museum that we in Australia have been working with is the "Powerhouse Museum". They wanted to make their content more open but the discussion about changing the license of images of objects is a long and complicated one that is still ongoing. So, they changed the license to something that they *know* they own the rights to - the documentation. See their post about it here: http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/dmsblog/index.php/2009/04/02/powerhouse-coll... think this a fantastic step and possibly even more valuable than the images themselves. And, is one step in a broader strategy of encouraging openness.
-Liam [[witty lama]]
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
David Gerard wrote:
2009/9/28 wiki-lists@phizz.demon.co.uk:
From the earlier poster Teofilo: I disagree. I think the priority is to have the full resolution pictures of Public Domain works. That seems to be a demand to have the highest resolution copies possible.
That sets it out as a goal, not a demand.
"There is no need to negociate anything. There is no need to change a single word from the current French copyright law. Simply have the French government's cultural institutions (museums, archives) recognize that they have been wrong until now"
just doesn't read like a goal, its a demand.
But getting back to the case in question - we're talking about the sort of museum that's actually a government sub-department. Thus, public domain images that the taxpayer has *already paid for*. I see nothing whatsoever unreasonable about the idea of asking-to-demanding those. They're owned by the public, not by the museum bureaucrats.
Whilst those digitalizations they may be owned by the French public, they certainly aren't owned by the German public, British, Italian, Spanish, or American public either.
-----Original Message-----
From: wiki-lists@phizz.demon.co.uk To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:31 pm Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc...
David Gerard wrote:
2009/9/28 wiki-lists@phizz.demon.co.uk:
From the earlier poster Teofilo: I disagree. I think the priority is to have the full resolution pictures of Public Domain works. That seems to be a demand to have the highest resolution copies possible.
That sets it out as a goal, not a demand.
"There is no need to negociate anything. There is no need to change a single word from the current French copyright law. Simply have the French government's cultural institutions (museums, archives) recognize that they have been wrong until now"
just doesn't read like a goal, its a demand.
But getting back to the case in question - we're talking about the sort of museum that's actually a government sub-department. Thus, public domain images that the taxpayer has *already paid for*. I see nothing whatsoever unreasonable about the idea of asking-to-demanding those. They're owned by the public, not by the museum bureaucrats.
<<Whilst those digitalizations they may be owned by the French public, they certainly aren't owned by the German public, British, Italian, Spanish, or American public either.>>
"The public" doesn't have national boundaries. "The public" means all of the public, here there and elsewhere.
W.J.
wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: wiki-lists@phizz.demon.co.uk To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:31 pm Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc...
David Gerard wrote:
2009/9/28 wiki-lists@phizz.demon.co.uk:
From the earlier poster Teofilo: I disagree. I think the priority is to have the full resolution pictures of Public Domain works. That seems to be a demand to have the highest resolution copies possible.
That sets it out as a goal, not a demand.
"There is no need to negociate anything. There is no need to change a single word from the current French copyright law. Simply have the French government's cultural institutions (museums, archives) recognize that they have been wrong until now"just doesn't read like a goal, its a demand.
But getting back to the case in question - we're talking about the sort of museum that's actually a government sub-department. Thus, public domain images that the taxpayer has *already paid for*. I see nothing whatsoever unreasonable about the idea of asking-to-demanding those. They're owned by the public, not by the museum bureaucrats.
<<Whilst those digitalizations they may be owned by the French public, they certainly aren't owned by the German public, British, Italian, Spanish, or American public either.>>
"The public" doesn't have national boundaries. "The public" means all of the public, here there and elsewhere.
You are confused. Lets parse the quote shall we?
"Thus, public domain images that the taxpayer has *already paid for*."
would be the digitization of the images that the French taxpayers have paid for. The following sentence:
"They're owned by the public, not by the museum bureaucrats."
refers to the digitizations that the public (the French taxpayers) have paid for. It can't possibly refer to the images themselves because in most cases those images were either given to the Nation by their owners in lieu if taxes, confiscated, or stolen during periods of war and colonialism.
As such we aren't taking about "'The public' means all of the public, here there and elsewhere." but a specific set of national taxpayers.
-----Original Message-----
From: wiki-lists@phizz.demon.co.uk To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:58 pm Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc...
wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: wiki-lists@phizz.demon.co.uk To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:31 pm Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with
the Frenc...
David Gerard wrote:
2009/9/28 wiki-lists@phizz.demon.co.uk:
From the earlier poster Teofilo: I disagree. I think the priority is to have the full resolution pictures of Public Domain works. That seems to be a demand to have the highest resolution copies possible.
That sets it out as a goal, not a demand.
"There is no need to negociate anything. There is no need to change a single word from the current French copyright law. Simply have the French government's cultural institutions (museums, archives) recognize that they have been wrong until now"just doesn't read like a goal, its a demand.
But getting back to the case in question - we're talking about the sort of museum that's actually a government sub-department. Thus, public domain images that the taxpayer has *already paid for*. I see nothing whatsoever unreasonable about the idea of asking-to-demanding those. They're owned by the public, not by the museum bureaucrats.
<<Whilst those digitalizations they may be owned by the French public, they certainly aren't owned by the German public, British, Italian, Spanish, or American public either.>>
"The public" doesn't have national boundaries. "The public" means all of the public, here there and elsewhere.
You are confused. Lets parse the quote shall we?
"Thus, public domain images that the taxpayer has *already paid for*."
would be the digitization of the images that the French taxpayers have paid for. The following sentence:
"They're owned by the public, not by the museum bureaucrats."
refers to the digitizations that the public (the French taxpayers) have paid for. It can't possibly refer to the images themselves because in most cases those images were either given to the Nation by their owners in lieu if taxes, confiscated, or stolen during periods of war and colonialism.
As such we aren't taking about "'The public' means all of the public, here there and elsewhere." but a specific set of national taxpayers.>> ------------------
Okay let's parse the meaning. Once an image has "been paid for" and is "in the public domain", that means that anyone, in this country, the next, or on Venus can use the image.
Whether or not the person who said "paid for by the taxpayers" was being specific to a certain country or using a loose phrase, isn't really relevant.
The image is in the public domain. That's the point. Public means all public, not limited to the whims of what the boundary of a certain country might be today.
wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
The image is in the public domain. That's the point. Public means all public, not limited to the whims of what the boundary of a certain country might be today.
Suppose someone goes into the Louvre not with a camera but with a laser scanner. they digitize the entire statue, convert the point cloud into surfaces, and then from the surfaces into CNC program files. Finally they slap a block of marble on a milling machine and mill out an exact copy of the original. Whilst they don't get to obtain any copyright on the copy YOU don't get to claim that the CNC files are yours of right.
Same with the digitization of a painting.
-----Original Message-----
From: wiki-lists@phizz.demon.co.uk To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Sep 30, 2009 4:17 pm Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc...
wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
The image is in the public domain. That's the point. Public means all public, not limited to the whims of what the boundary of a
certain
country might be today.
Suppose someone goes into the Louvre not with a camera but with a laser scanner. they digitize the entire statue, convert the point cloud into surfaces, and then from the surfaces into CNC program files. Finally they slap a block of marble on a milling machine and mill out an exact copy of the original. Whilst they don't get to obtain any copyright on the copy YOU don't get to claim that the CNC files are yours of right.
Same with the digitization of a painting.>> --------------------
Are you believing that I'm stating there is a right to claim anything? Because if you are, I never did. I stated quite the opposite. Once something is in the "public domain" in any country, then you can use it. That is what I stated, and nothing more.
Turning a 3-d statue into a series of computer data files is quite a different animal from turning a 2-d painting into a exactly reproduced photograph.
A photographic copy, adhering to the original painting, does not enjoy a new copyright. A photograph of a painting which is in the public domain does not enjoy any new rights. Once that photograph is posted online, anyone can make a copy of it and do whatever they want with it.
To prevent that, all you have to do, is take a photograph of the Mona Lisa and include your girlfriend standing next to it. That would make it unique and not merely an exact copy of the painting.
I have never stated that you have a "right to demand" the photograph. I've only stated, that the photographer does not have a right to order you to cease. Quite a different animal.
wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: wiki-lists@phizz.demon.co.uk To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Sep 30, 2009 4:17 pm Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc...
wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
The image is in the public domain. That's the point. Public means all public, not limited to the whims of what the boundary of a
certain
country might be today.
Suppose someone goes into the Louvre not with a camera but with a laser scanner. they digitize the entire statue, convert the point cloud into surfaces, and then from the surfaces into CNC program files. Finally they slap a block of marble on a milling machine and mill out an exact copy of the original. Whilst they don't get to obtain any copyright on the copy YOU don't get to claim that the CNC files are yours of right.
Same with the digitization of a painting.>>
Are you believing that I'm stating there is a right to claim anything? Because if you are, I never did. I stated quite the opposite. Once something is in the "public domain" in any country, then you can use it. That is what I stated, and nothing more.
"Once an image has "been paid for" and is "in the public domain", that means that anyone, in this country, the next, or on Venus can use the image."
This entire discussion is concerned not with the work per se but with particular digital encodings of the work. Where some seem to think that just because the work is PD there is a right to all encodings of that work. If that isn't what is being claimed here then there is no problem, the museums are under no obligation to provide any digital representation.
Turning a 3-d statue into a series of computer data files is quite a different animal from turning a 2-d painting into a exactly reproduced photograph.
It is exactly the same thing. The CNC files are exactly equivalent to a jpeg. So I can't quite see why you'd consider them different.
A photographic copy, adhering to the original painting, does not enjoy a new copyright. A photograph of a painting which is in the public domain does not enjoy any new rights. Once that photograph is posted online, anyone can make a copy of it and do whatever they want with it.
The posited CNC files do exactly the same thing: they adhere to the original statue. In all probability they encode the reproduction of the original object more exactly then a jpeg encodes the reproduction of a painting. Logically under this doctrine that the digital encoding is the work if say some disgruntled employee were to post them online then "anyone can make a copy of it and do whatever they want with it."
I think everyone is probably a bit tired of this topic so this will be my last response.
You keep positing that someone is espousing that the museums have to actively participate in providing copies of something to someone.? Has somebody claimed that?? If they did, it wasn't me.? I have never claimed, and wouldn't claim, under any sort of copyright issue, that the holder of anything is required to do anything at all.? Or has any obligation, legal or moral to do anything.? The "doing" on their part is an active participation and I've never claimed that the museum has to be active in any regard in this issue.
What I have claimed is that the purported claimant, cannot stop a seizure.? If I take, without permission, without asking, without requiring anything from you.? Just take, you cannot claim that I've in violation of some perceived copyright.? That is quite different from stating that they must provide the material to anyone, or are required to, or should feel required to.
W.J.
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 19:22, wiki-lists@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Where some seem to think that just because the work is PD there is a right to all encodings of that work.
To use an extreme hypothetical example: The novel "Pride and Prejudice" is in the public domain. It will take me a long time to retype the entire thing into a text file. If my copy is verbatim - that is, if I have faithfully transcribed the original manuscript - then has the sweat of my brow earned me the right to claim copyright on my text file?
Under US case law, the answer is pretty clearly "no". Jane Austen did the actual writing, and I was just making a copy (albeit in a different format). Copyright only applies to new creative works, and here I have not done anything creative, so no new copyright applies. I can only claim my own copyright in this case if I contribute some creativity of my own - for example, by adapting the novel into a screenplay, or by reworking the plot to include zombies. (Unfortunately, somebody has already beaten me to the zombie bit.)
UK law is a little fuzzy here, but presumably my text file would not merit its own copyright there. (If I am wrong, and it would, then somebody please let me know - I'll need to book a flight right away.)
Now, I'll admit, this example is ridiculous compared to a JPEG of a public-domain painting, laser scans of a public-domain sculpture, or an Ogg Vorbis clip of a public-domain sound recording. However, the fundamental argument remains: the act of *creation* is what earns copyright, not the act of faithful transcription.
wiki-lists@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
This entire discussion is concerned not with the work per se but with particular digital encodings of the work. Where some seem to think that just because the work is PD there is a right to all encodings of that work. If that isn't what is being claimed here then there is no problem,
Not to all encodings, only to non-creative encodings.
wiki-lists@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
The image is in the public domain. That's the point. Public means all public, not limited to the whims of what the boundary of a certain country might be today.
Suppose someone goes into the Louvre not with a camera but with a laser scanner. they digitize the entire statue, convert the point cloud into surfaces, and then from the surfaces into CNC program files. Finally they slap a block of marble on a milling machine and mill out an exact copy of the original. Whilst they don't get to obtain any copyright on the copy YOU don't get to claim that the CNC files are yours of right.
If the original statue is in public domain, then its digital 3D copy is in public domain too. Some person may have physical ownership of the copy and you can not legally compel the person to give a copy to you. But were you somehow to obtain this digital copy, even by illegal means, there is nothing the person could legally do to prevent you or anyone else to copy it further. Physical ownership of an actual work (electronic or physical) is completely independent to copyright ownership of the work.
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 6:14 AM, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.rs wrote:
wiki-lists@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
The image is in the public domain. That's the point. Public means all public, not limited to the whims of what the boundary
of a certain
country might be today.
Suppose someone goes into the Louvre not with a camera but with a laser scanner. they digitize the entire statue, convert the point cloud into surfaces, and then from the surfaces into CNC program files. Finally they slap a block of marble on a milling machine and mill out an exact copy of the original. Whilst they don't get to obtain any copyright on the copy YOU don't get to claim that the CNC files are yours of right.
If the original statue is in public domain, then its digital 3D copy is in public domain too. Some person may have physical ownership of the copy and you can not legally compel the person to give a copy to you. But were you somehow to obtain this digital copy, even by illegal means, there is nothing the person could legally do to prevent you or anyone else to copy it further. Physical ownership of an actual work (electronic or physical) is completely independent to copyright ownership of the work.
This is the difference between *copyright* and *access-right. *The latter
refers to *physical property*. Given that we in Wikimedia-land only deal with digital copies we are very adept with copyright (and copyright edge-cases). But since we do not own any physical objects and therefore have no "stuff" we do not have any experience in managing access-rights.
This is almost the reverse (to a certain extent) of museums which have for generations had to deal with "access issues" (like whether you can enter the museum at a certain time and how much entrance fee to charge and whether you can touch the objects) but have only recently started to deal with issues of digital copyright - people with their own cameras in the museum and people copying images off their website.
Yes, if you have PD material then that is free to be re-used, but equally, no one can force you to give it to them to use. A museum can give you their PD scan but they are not obliged to and they can charge you lots of money if they wish. If you had scans of old family photographs on your computer, the fact that the scans are PD does not mean that you have to give anyone copies of those photos. But if you publish those photographs then they are fair game.
There's also another layer - contract. If I pay a museum for a high-resolution copy of their image of an object (whether PD or not) I will be asked to sign a license indicating the form, duration and purpose of my usage and stipulating that I am only allowed to use the image for that purpose. This is a private contract and it effectively creates copyright-like restrictions on PD works. [This was raised in the GLAM-WIKI recommendationshttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM-WIKI_Recommendations#Requests_to_GLAM: "Remove "clickwrap" and contracts which place copyright-like restrictions on public domain content."]. It is my understanding that if you break this contract and do something you weren't supposed to do with the work then you can be sued - not for breach of copyright but for breach of *contract*. This won't bring the control of the work but has effectively the same costly consequence for you.
Of course, it doesn't cover third-parties such as visitors to a website. So, if I license the image for my site and then someone else comes along and copies it to Wikimedia Commons this is perfectly legal because I didn't break the contract (assuming I licensed the work to be put on my website without technical protection measures).
If you want to read a fantastic discussion of the reasons (some) museums give for their "no photgraphy" policy - and why that should change - then read this blog post by Nina Simon: http://museumtwo.blogspot.com/2009/08/museum-photo-policies-should-be-as-ope...
-Liam [[witty lama]]
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2009/9/30 wiki-lists@phizz.demon.co.uk:
David Gerard wrote:
But getting back to the case in question - we're talking about the sort of museum that's actually a government sub-department. Thus, public domain images that the taxpayer has *already paid for*. I see nothing whatsoever unreasonable about the idea of asking-to-demanding those. They're owned by the public, not by the museum bureaucrats.
Whilst those digitalizations they may be owned by the French public, they certainly aren't owned by the German public, British, Italian, Spanish, or American public either.
And limiting them is to the benefit of ... ?
- d.
I should have said it in my previous message : the first and foremost priority for France, is that Government-owned museums allow visitors who paid their entrance ticket to carry a camera and take pictures of paintings and sculptures when the painters and sculptors died more than 70 years ago.
In 2005, the Government-owned Guimet museum in Paris, which is famous for its Chinese and Japanese art collections, asked for 50€ for each non-commercial-purpose photographic shot and 5000€ for a commercial-purpose shot (1).
Telling the Museum administrators that we want to use their pictures taken by their photographers is not the best message. The best message is : allow every camera carrying citizen to take his own pictures.
If they want to contribute to Wikipedia with photographs taken by their photographers, it is OK but it is not a priority.
(1) http://web.archive.org/web/20050305062057/www.museeguimet.fr/homes/home_id20...
2009/9/28, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2009/9/28 wiki-lists@phizz.demon.co.uk:
From the earlier poster Teofilo: I disagree. I think the priority is to have the full resolution pictures of Public Domain works. That seems to be a demand to have the highest resolution copies possible.
That sets it out as a goal, not a demand.
But getting back to the case in question - we're talking about the sort of museum that's actually a government sub-department. Thus, public domain images that the taxpayer has *already paid for*. I see nothing whatsoever unreasonable about the idea of asking-to-demanding those. They're owned by the public, not by the museum bureaucrats.
That was not the right link. Good link :
http://web.archive.org/web/20050208203749/http://www.museeguimet.fr/pages/pa...
2009/9/30, Teofilo teofilowiki@gmail.com:
(1) http://web.archive.org/web/20050305062057/www.museeguimet.fr/homes/home_id20...
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Teofilo teofilowiki@gmail.com wrote:
I should have said it in my previous message : the first and foremost priority for France, is that Government-owned museums allow visitors who paid their entrance ticket to carry a camera and take pictures of paintings and sculptures when the painters and sculptors died more than 70 years ago.
I partly agree, but keep in mind that the reason why some museum do not let visitors take photos is not necessarily copyright. For example, flashes can damage paintings, and I wouldn't like to visit a crowded museum slaloming between hundreds of photographers with tripods trying to take a picture of every single work of art present.
In 2005, the Government-owned Guimet museum in Paris, which is famous for its Chinese and Japanese art collections, asked for 50€ for each non-commercial-purpose photographic shot and 5000€ for a commercial-purpose shot (1).
Interesting. However, I'm not sure whether it refers to a (semi)professional shot which may require using tripods, maybe closing the room for some time to allow taking pictures and maybe use the museum as the stage for something else, or this is what they charge a visitor which wants to take a photo of his son next to a Japanese dragon. Anyway, it is interesting to see that art editors are considered as non-profit.
Telling the Museum administrators that we want to use their pictures taken by their photographers is not the best message. The best message is : allow every camera carrying citizen to take his own pictures.
What we want to say is that they or their photographers do not have the right to claim copyright on the photos, and that they have to rethink this business model. Of course it is a "wrong" message from their point of view, and of course they have every right not to publish the high-resolution image their photographer took (in the old days you could read it as they don't have to let you access the negative), but if they choose to publish them they cannot stop people making their own copies and using them for whatever reason. (I'm assuming PD-art applies to France, otherwise it's only a matter of good will)
Cruccone
Marco Chiesa wrote:
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Teofilo wrote:
I should have said it in my previous message : the first and foremost priority for France, is that Government-owned museums allow visitors who paid their entrance ticket to carry a camera and take pictures of paintings and sculptures when the painters and sculptors died more than 70 years ago.
I partly agree, but keep in mind that the reason why some museum do not let visitors take photos is not necessarily copyright. For example, flashes can damage paintings, and I wouldn't like to visit a crowded museum slaloming between hundreds of photographers with tripods trying to take a picture of every single work of art present.
Of course, photo technology has developed to a point where flash or tripods are no longer necessary for getting a decent picture.
As I have understood it tripods are banned because some can damage museum floors, or leave ugly black streaks on the floor that are difficult to clean.
Ec
Teofilo wrote:
I should have said it in my previous message : the first and foremost priority for France, is that Government-owned museums allow visitors who paid their entrance ticket to carry a camera and take pictures of paintings and sculptures when the painters and sculptors died more than 70 years ago.
I was in the Loire-et-Cher region a couple of weeks back and photography was allowed in nearly all the locations we visited. In the places which did have signs up saying "No photography" no one was taking any notice at all, not even the staff.
In addition I had the Mairies open up the churches to record medieval frescoes, monuments, baptismal fonts, stained glass, paintings, stone carvings, etc. No problem at all. Most of them seemed genuinely pleased that someone was taking an interest. In a couple of places, as I was finishing a local dignitary would turn up to point out something I might have missed.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org