The public catalog foundation has been busy digitising the nation's art. All those paintings held by government institutions and local councils. Pretty nice. Their website is here:
and the paintings can be found here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/
Some very nice stuff there.
Unfortunately they claim copyright. My favorite example is this. It's a Fayum mummy portrait about 1700 years old:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/paintings/portrait-of-a-lady-31089
And yet if we open up the meta data:
"Copyright Victoria and Albert Museum / Supplied by The Public Catalogue Foundation This image is copyrighted."
The artist for this painting
http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/paintings/the-launching-of-hms-royal...
died 1873 and yet we open up the meta data and
"Copyright Hampshire County Council Museums Service / Supplied by The Public Catalogue Foundation . This image is copyrighted."
The rest of the text runs:
The Public Catalogue Foundation is committed to respecting the intellectual property rights of others. The copyright in paintings and images reproduced by the Public Catalogue Foundation belong to a variety of organisations and individuals including the collections that own the paintings and third party rights holders. Permitted Use of This Image: This image and data related to the image may be reproduced for non-commercial research and private study purposes. For ALL other uses other than those outlined above, including commercial uses, users should contact, in the first instance, the contributing collection using the contact information provided on the Your Paintings website. Where the underlying painting is in copyright, further permissions will also be needed. Protection of Image Copyright: This image is protected with a secure invisible digital watermark that allows the Public Catalogue Foundation to identify unauthorized use of the image. Further Information: Any queries should be addressed to copyrightofficer@thepcf.org.uk
Lovey. We could just ignore this and let the Americans take care of matters but it might be smarter to stage an intervention before we get NPG mark 2.
I've met with them several times; as you can see, the discussions didn't get very far...
Mike
On 23 Jun 2011, at 20:56, geni wrote:
The public catalog foundation has been busy digitising the nation's art. All those paintings held by government institutions and local councils. Pretty nice. Their website is here:
and the paintings can be found here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/
Some very nice stuff there.
Unfortunately they claim copyright. My favorite example is this. It's a Fayum mummy portrait about 1700 years old:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/paintings/portrait-of-a-lady-31089
And yet if we open up the meta data:
"Copyright Victoria and Albert Museum / Supplied by The Public Catalogue Foundation This image is copyrighted."
The artist for this painting
http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/paintings/the-launching-of-hms-royal...
died 1873 and yet we open up the meta data and
"Copyright Hampshire County Council Museums Service / Supplied by The Public Catalogue Foundation . This image is copyrighted."
The rest of the text runs:
The Public Catalogue Foundation is committed to respecting the intellectual property rights of others. The copyright in paintings and images reproduced by the Public Catalogue Foundation belong to a variety of organisations and individuals including the collections that own the paintings and third party rights holders. Permitted Use of This Image: This image and data related to the image may be reproduced for non-commercial research and private study purposes. For ALL other uses other than those outlined above, including commercial uses, users should contact, in the first instance, the contributing collection using the contact information provided on the Your Paintings website. Where the underlying painting is in copyright, further permissions will also be needed. Protection of Image Copyright: This image is protected with a secure invisible digital watermark that allows the Public Catalogue Foundation to identify unauthorized use of the image. Further Information: Any queries should be addressed to copyrightofficer@thepcf.org.uk
Lovey. We could just ignore this and let the Americans take care of matters but it might be smarter to stage an intervention before we get NPG mark 2.
-- geni
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Let's be blunt; when someone in the US decides to take copies of all images where the paintings have entered the public domain, they will not be able to do a thing about it.
Organisations should not need beaten over the head with Bridgeman vs Corel; but, someone will do it.
On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 20:59 +0100, Michael Peel wrote:
I've met with them several times; as you can see, the discussions didn't get very far...
Mike
On 23 Jun 2011, at 20:56, geni wrote:
The public catalog foundation has been busy digitising the nation's art. All those paintings held by government institutions and local councils. Pretty nice. Their website is here:
and the paintings can be found here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/
Some very nice stuff there.
Unfortunately they claim copyright. My favorite example is this. It's a Fayum mummy portrait about 1700 years old:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/paintings/portrait-of-a-lady-31089
And yet if we open up the meta data:
"Copyright Victoria and Albert Museum / Supplied by The Public Catalogue Foundation This image is copyrighted."
The artist for this painting
http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/paintings/the-launching-of-hms-royal...
died 1873 and yet we open up the meta data and
"Copyright Hampshire County Council Museums Service / Supplied by The Public Catalogue Foundation . This image is copyrighted."
The rest of the text runs:
The Public Catalogue Foundation is committed to respecting the intellectual property rights of others. The copyright in paintings and images reproduced by the Public Catalogue Foundation belong to a variety of organisations and individuals including the collections that own the paintings and third party rights holders. Permitted Use of This Image: This image and data related to the image may be reproduced for non-commercial research and private study purposes. For ALL other uses other than those outlined above, including commercial uses, users should contact, in the first instance, the contributing collection using the contact information provided on the Your Paintings website. Where the underlying painting is in copyright, further permissions will also be needed. Protection of Image Copyright: This image is protected with a secure invisible digital watermark that allows the Public Catalogue Foundation to identify unauthorized use of the image. Further Information: Any queries should be addressed to copyrightofficer@thepcf.org.uk
Lovey. We could just ignore this and let the Americans take care of matters but it might be smarter to stage an intervention before we get NPG mark 2.
-- geni
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
With respect, no. We need to persuade our legislators to change copyright law so this doesn't happen.
But then, if that happens, what incentive will there be for institutions to take and document such images?
On 23 June 2011 20:56, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
The public catalog foundation has been busy digitising the nation's art. All those paintings held by government institutions and local councils. Pretty nice. Their website is here:
and the paintings can be found here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/
Some very nice stuff there.
Unfortunately they claim copyright. My favorite example is this. It's a Fayum mummy portrait about 1700 years old:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/paintings/portrait-of-a-lady-31089
And yet if we open up the meta data:
"Copyright Victoria and Albert Museum / Supplied by The Public Catalogue Foundation This image is copyrighted."
The artist for this painting
http://www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/paintings/the-launching-of-hms-royal...
died 1873 and yet we open up the meta data and
"Copyright Hampshire County Council Museums Service / Supplied by The Public Catalogue Foundation . This image is copyrighted."
The rest of the text runs:
The Public Catalogue Foundation is committed to respecting the intellectual property rights of others. The copyright in paintings and images reproduced by the Public Catalogue Foundation belong to a variety of organisations and individuals including the collections that own the paintings and third party rights holders. Permitted Use of This Image: This image and data related to the image may be reproduced for non-commercial research and private study purposes. For ALL other uses other than those outlined above, including commercial uses, users should contact, in the first instance, the contributing collection using the contact information provided on the Your Paintings website. Where the underlying painting is in copyright, further permissions will also be needed. Protection of Image Copyright: This image is protected with a secure invisible digital watermark that allows the Public Catalogue Foundation to identify unauthorized use of the image. Further Information: Any queries should be addressed to copyrightofficer@thepcf.org.uk
Lovey. We could just ignore this and let the Americans take care of matters but it might be smarter to stage an intervention before we get NPG mark 2.
On 23 June 2011 21:05, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
With respect, no. We need to persuade our legislators to change copyright law so this doesn't happen.
Best we can tell goverments love copyright consultations but don't seem to be interested actual changes to the law rather than enforcement.
But then, if that happens, what incentive will there be for institutions to take and document such images?
I find it hard to believe that money is really much of a motivator at this point. I really doubt there is much of a market for this stuff. A lot of it is pretty meh 18th and early 19th century stuff and even the stuff in areas I know well I haven't seen before which means people aren't out there buying it.
I believe there is a push for a major overhaul of UK copyright law, mainly to correct anomalies which have been recently introduced.
On 23/06/2011 21:25, geni wrote:
On 23 June 2011 21:05, Andy Mabbettandy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
With respect, no. We need to persuade our legislators to change copyright law so this doesn't happen.
Best we can tell goverments love copyright consultations but don't seem to be interested actual changes to the law rather than enforcement.
But then, if that happens, what incentive will there be for institutions to take and document such images?
I find it hard to believe that money is really much of a motivator at this point. I really doubt there is much of a market for this stuff. A lot of it is pretty meh 18th and early 19th century stuff and even the stuff in areas I know well I haven't seen before which means people aren't out there buying it.
On 23 June 2011 21:05, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
With respect, no. We need to persuade our legislators to change copyright law so this doesn't happen.
Do we? Where does the law actually stand on things like this? My understanding is that it is still unclear. A test-case in court might be useful, even if it does go against us. Once the current law is clarified, we can campaign for a change in the law (or not, if it isn't needed).
On 24 June 2011 12:30, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 June 2011 21:05, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
With respect, no. We need to persuade our legislators to change copyright law so this doesn't happen.
Do we? Where does the law actually stand on things like this? My understanding is that it is still unclear. A test-case in court might be useful, even if it does go against us. Once the current law is clarified, we can campaign for a change in the law (or not, if it isn't needed).
I wouldn't be so quick to resolve things in law before we need to, while we can still slant the situation on the ground.
- d.
Hmm their tagging system also has issues. Rather than allowing you to tag the paintings of your choice (the ones you actually know something about). You have to tag paintings that are randomly presented to you.
This is an interesting debate. The fact that these tags are being placed on 1700 year old paintings undermines the value of copyright claims that are legally enforceable. We must ensure that we are respecting the law in a clear way even if very questionable claims are being made. Paintings are copyright in the UK for 70 years after authors death. Wikimedia has been clear that it does not believe that you can "re-image" to get a copyright which some UK GLAMs do in a very ordered way. They obviously believe that this may create some new rights. Logic tells me this cannot be true as it makes the 70 year rule a mockery.
If we go to court then we need to go at someone elses invitation. Our job at present I think is to influence public opinion so that when the law is changed then it moves in our direction. We can do this by not breaking the 70 year rule (ever) and by honouring attribution (always) and by challenging these claims. This is our cultural heritage and someone with a camera cannot claim they made it.
rant over Roger
On 6 July 2011 05:00, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm their tagging system also has issues. Rather than allowing you to tag the paintings of your choice (the ones you actually know something about). You have to tag paintings that are randomly presented to you.
-- geni
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org