[Foundation-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc...

[David Goodman]

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 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro at gmail.com
>> wrote:
>
>> David Gerard wrote:
>> > 2009/9/28  <wiki-lists at 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-collection-documentation-goes-creative-commons/I
> 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>