Re: "It is certainly strange to me that some cultural organisations pursue image licensing as a loss making venture that also borders on copyfraud..."
I'm hoping that museums will still want to spend money on digitising their content. But we need to be realistic, if they can't subsidise that by getting at least some of the money back from image licensing, they may do less of it.
Of course rumour has it that some institutions weren't even getting as much from image licencing as it cost them to market and sell those images. My hope is that fewer institutions will think of digitisation in terms of fundraising and more in terms of fulfilling their mission of preserving and recording their collection and making their collections available to all.
But my fear is that there will be more items that can only be seen if visited and the only available images are photos of the painting on mugs and jigsaws from the museum shop.
Jonathan
On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 at 09:39, Deryck Chan <deryckchan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm slightly confused by the article. It refers to THJ vs Sheridan (2023)
> but that ruling was about software-generated graphs and said nothing
> about reproducing out-of-copyright content?
It doesn't need to. It clarifies the conditions under which a
copyright is created; the subject matter is immaterial.
See paragraphs 14-16 ("The Law"), in particular:
"What is required [for copyright to exist] is that the author was able
to express their creative abilities in the production of the work by
making free and creative choices so as to stamp the work created with
their
personal touch [...] This criterion is not satisfied where the content
of the work is dictated by technical considerations, rules or other
constraints which leave no room for creative freedom"
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk