Hoi. I am talking to a few museums and archives and several of them are interested in considering Commons for their collection. At the same time they are also considering Flickr.
The issue they have with Commons is its restrictions. One of the museums said it like this: "We have done our best to ascertain the copyright status of much of our material. We have not been able to find the original copyright holder or someone who inherited these rights. When we post our material to Flickr, we just remove the material when a copyright holder turns up and asks us to. Doing it in any other way requires much more effort. Effort that we rather spend in more productive endeavours like digitising and annotating."
My question is, will it be acceptable when a museum or archive provides us with their material and when we learn about a request to take down material, we do this when requested by the copyright holder. This is not considered an issue with Flickr !! Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 12:35 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
I am talking to a few museums and archives and several of them are interested in considering Commons for their collection. At the same time they are also considering Flickr.
The issue they have with Commons is its restrictions. One of the museums said it like this: "We have done our best to ascertain the copyright status of much of our material. We have not been able to find the original copyright holder or someone who inherited these rights. When we post our material to Flickr, we just remove the material when a copyright holder turns up and asks us to. Doing it in any other way requires much more effort. Effort that we rather spend in more productive endeavours like digitising and annotating."
My question is, will it be acceptable when a museum or archive provides us with their material and when we learn about a request to take down material, we do this when requested by the copyright holder. This is not considered an issue with Flickr !!
Once again, if we have non-free.wikimedia.org repository, with precise rules, we wouldn't be able to have all kinds of materials which policy of Commons prohibits: * Orphan works. * Somewhat more flexible conditions for the situations like you mentioned. * Logos and other trademarks at one place. * Strictly defined fair use images (like on en.wp) at one place.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 5:50 AM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Once again, if we have non-free.wikimedia.org repository, with precise rules, we wouldn't be able to have all kinds of materials which policy of Commons prohibits:
... we would be able to have some kinds...
2009/3/30 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
Once again, if we have non-free.wikimedia.org repository, with precise rules, we wouldn't be able to have all kinds of materials which policy of Commons prohibits:
- Orphan works.
Strictly speaking no it doesn't. For example it would allow images that used the "the identity of an author shall be regarded as unknown if it is not possible for a person to ascertain his identity by reasonable inquiry; but if his identity is once known it shall not subsequently be regarded as unknown." clause under UK law. Good luck meeting that requirement though.
- Somewhat more flexible conditions for the situations like you mentioned.
No. Commons lack of flexibility exists partly in order to keep things understandable.
- Logos and other trademarks at one place.
- Strictly defined fair use images (like on en.wp) at one place.
This wouldn't be legal.
Дана Monday 30 March 2009 19:37:08 geni написа:
2009/3/30 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
- Logos and other trademarks at one place.
- Strictly defined fair use images (like on en.wp) at one place.
This wouldn't be legal.
Why not?
2009/3/30 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
My question is, will it be acceptable when a museum or archive provides us with their material and when we learn about a request to take down material, we do this when requested by the copyright holder. This is not considered an issue with Flickr !!
A museum should be having no problem providing us with material in these two scenarios:
1. The image is PD 2. The image is subject to copyright and the museum owns all required rights of usage/copyrights to release the image under a free license
If the image is subject to copyright and the museum is unable to provide these rights of usage, it is not suitable for Wikimedia Commons.
Mathias
Hoi. I am talking to a few museums and archives and several of them are interested in considering Commons for their collection. At the same time they are also considering Flickr.
I am not sure I understand the issue.
If we are talking about PD material, whether it is hosted on Flickr, on the website of the museum or elsewhere, we can still use it and upload on Commons (possibly by a bot). Example: Finnish National Gallery http://www.ateneum.fi/ has on its site virtually all canvasses and many of the graphic works it possesses, which gives a good overview of Finnish painting in general. I do not see why those images which are PD can not be uploaded on Commons. Same would apply if they hosted on Flickr.
If material is not PD, it can not be uploaded.
What is wrong with this reasoning?
Cheers Yaroslav
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ruwrote:
I am not sure I understand the issue.
If we are talking about PD material, whether it is hosted on Flickr, on the website of the museum or elsewhere, we can still use it and upload on Commons (possibly by a bot). Example: Finnish National Gallery http://www.ateneum.fi/ has on its site virtually all canvasses and many of the graphic works it possesses, which gives a good overview of Finnish painting in general. I do not see why those images which are PD can not be uploaded on Commons. Same would apply if they hosted on Flickr.
If material is not PD, it can not be uploaded.
What is wrong with this reasoning?
Cheers Yaroslav
I'm still puzzled on what is the right thing to do with
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/File:Shakespeare.jpg
which was deleted twice and then reuploaded.
When a museum claims to own copyright on a several hundred years piece, do we concede? I recall seeing many cases of bogus copyright claims being dismissed and file kept on Commons. So what happened there?
If a museum or archive asserts copyright on a PD work or art, we ignore such claims. The WMF has stated they are willing to go to court to defend the public domain status of historic artwork (and photographic reproductions thereof).
See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#The_pos...
Ryan Kaldari
I'm still puzzled on what is the right thing to do with
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/File:Shakespeare.jpg
which was deleted twice and then reuploaded.
When a museum claims to own copyright on a several hundred years piece, do we concede? I recall seeing many cases of bogus copyright claims being dismissed and file kept on Commons. So what happened there? _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, You just posted what is generally believed to be the position of the WMF. You did not answer the question. What picture is referred to? Where are the discussions about this picture? Is this the picture believed to be the bard as he really looked like ??
If this is indeed the picture that is talked about, I would love to know the motivation for its deletion. I also seem to remember that it was a featured picture on the English Wikipedia... Thanks, GerardM
2009/3/30 Ryan Kaldari kaldari@gmail.com
If a museum or archive asserts copyright on a PD work or art, we ignore such claims. The WMF has stated they are willing to go to court to defend the public domain status of historic artwork (and photographic reproductions thereof).
See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#The_pos...
Ryan Kaldari
I'm still puzzled on what is the right thing to do with
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/File:Shakespeare.jpg
which was deleted twice and then reuploaded.
When a museum claims to own copyright on a several hundred years piece,
do
we concede? I recall seeing many cases of bogus copyright claims being dismissed and file kept on Commons. So what happened there? _______________________________________________ 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
The image was deleted prior to the PD-Art policy change on Commons.
Kaldari
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, You just posted what is generally believed to be the position of the WMF. You did not answer the question. What picture is referred to? Where are the discussions about this picture? Is this the picture believed to be the bard as he really looked like ??
If this is indeed the picture that is talked about, I would love to know the motivation for its deletion. I also seem to remember that it was a featured picture on the English Wikipedia... Thanks, GerardM
2009/3/30 Ryan Kaldari kaldari@gmail.com
If a museum or archive asserts copyright on a PD work or art, we ignore such claims. The WMF has stated they are willing to go to court to defend the public domain status of historic artwork (and photographic reproductions thereof).
See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#The_pos...
Ryan Kaldari
I'm still puzzled on what is the right thing to do with
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/File:Shakespeare.jpg
which was deleted twice and then reuploaded.
When a museum claims to own copyright on a several hundred years piece,
do
we concede? I recall seeing many cases of bogus copyright claims being dismissed and file kept on Commons. So what happened there? _______________________________________________ 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
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, Public Domain is a side issue. The real issue is about how to cooperate with archives and museums. The fact that something that is in the public domain can be used in any which way is true but largely irrelevant when you consider that only a fraction of the material that is in archives and museums has been digitised. It is irrelevant when it is the museums themselves who want to digitise their material and make it available to the public.
The issue is how do we deal with material that cannot be sourced, relevant material that has no provenance. The question is when you have important material that is effectively orphaned. Where the organisation that has the material in its collection is willing to give it to us. Where the only thing known about a collection can be as little as we got it at this date from that person who was the son of so and so and where this was at a time when we did not have the legalese form that satisfies our modern day copyright jitters...
When we are to collaborate with museums and archives, we have to treat them as partners. The real issue is how do we partner and do more then just say "thank you". We have more to offer then Flickr, we just have to consider the position of our partners and demonstrate this in what we do. Thanks, GerardM
2009/3/30 Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru
Hoi. I am talking to a few museums and archives and several of them are interested in considering Commons for their collection. At the same time they are also considering Flickr.
I am not sure I understand the issue.
If we are talking about PD material, whether it is hosted on Flickr, on the website of the museum or elsewhere, we can still use it and upload on Commons (possibly by a bot). Example: Finnish National Gallery http://www.ateneum.fi/ has on its site virtually all canvasses and many of the graphic works it possesses, which gives a good overview of Finnish painting in general. I do not see why those images which are PD can not be uploaded on Commons. Same would apply if they hosted on Flickr.
If material is not PD, it can not be uploaded.
What is wrong with this reasoning?
Cheers Yaroslav
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
The real issue is about how to cooperate with archives and museums.
I can only underline this point of Gerard. In the end, it is always about cooperating with other people, trying to find out what are our common interests. Maybe those of us who are experienced with these cooperations could make a list of arguments that are important to museums, archives, libraries etc.? And what are their concerns we have to deal with?
Second, a picture without proper description (information about where it comes from etc.) loses a lot of its value. This is a reason for not simply taking things from the internet.
Kind regards Ziko
The real issue is about how to cooperate with archives and museums.
I can only underline this point of Gerard. In the end, it is always about cooperating with other people, trying to find out what are our common interests. Maybe those of us who are experienced with these cooperations could make a list of arguments that are important to museums, archives, libraries etc.? And what are their concerns we have to deal with?
Second, a picture without proper description (information about where it comes from etc.) loses a lot of its value. This is a reason for not simply taking things from the internet.
Sorry, I still do not understand.
Well, I all for cooperating with museums. Imagine though we suck and a museum X decides to cooperate with flickr and put properly licensed and attributed images there. We are only talking about PD-images. What prevents us from taking these images from flickr and uploading them on commons with proper attributon?
Cheers Yaroslav
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org