Hoi,
From your text I get the impression that it is
something special that we put
annotations about a work with the digital copy. I
would argue that this is
something that we should do with all our material. The annotations that
exist about a work, the references to the GLAM (galleries libraries archives
museums) are as important to us as they are to anyone else. It is in the
annotations, the rreferences to the GLAM where the original can be found
that provides the provenance that gives assurance that the image is a
truthful depiction of whatever it is supposed to be.
These annotations are as important as citations in our Wikipedia articles.
The copyright notices are relatively important but not relevant from a
content point of view./
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/7/13 David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
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.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l