[WikiEN-l] Copyright question

[David Gerard]

2009/7/18 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro at gmail.com>:

> What is most striking to my mind in this issue of
> use of images, is how the status quo differs from
> that with regard to _texts_.


Yes. One has to keep in mind, of course, that the NPG is qualitatively
different to most museums, and behaves much more like Gollum with the
One Ring. My *precioussss.*

This anonymous comment on the WMF blog was interesting:

http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/07/16/protecting-the-public-domain-and-sharing-our-cultural-heritage/#comment-1416


#  A Publisher Says:
July 17th, 2009 at 22:58

Excuse me for not posting under my real name, but I’m a publisher of
academic books in the UK, and I don’t want to embarrass my employers,
since I’m not speaking on behalf of the firm.

I’d just like to say that the National Portrait Gallery is one of the
worst offenders in the world in its digital practices. The terms and
conditions (quite apart from the cost) associated with getting
permission to use one of their images – itself a pretty offensive
idea, I know – are so bad that you can’t really afford to do business
with them.

This is particularly bad because the NPG often holds the only good
image of a historical figure. I’m publishing the only book in some
decades about a minor 18th-century writer, for instance, whom the NPG
owns the only contemporary painting of. It’s the obvious choice for a
cover image. But we can’t afford the money or the legal obstacles, so
it’s not on our cover. Instead we’re using an obscure etching of a
sketch made towards the exact same painting.

If I had to name one museum or gallery in the UK as the chief villain
in this all-too-common story, the NPG would be the one. They contrast
somewhat with the British Museum and the V&A, who are opening up a
little, though insisting that they own copyright and must be credited
as such, and restricting free use to scholars to print only, and
“non-commercial use” only, a term which of course is a little
difficult to define. But at least the BM and the V&A have some
sympathy with scholarship. That cannot be said for the NPG, which
seems desperate to monetise something it doesn’t and mustn’t own.

Don’t think that US galleries or museums abide by the spirit of Corel
v Bridgeman, incidentally; they frequently assert copyright exactly as
if it had never been ruled. They can do this because a publisher can’t
practicably restrict himself to one worldwide domain, and it’s only
law in a few countries. And museums often supply images with an end
user agreement containing amazing restrictions – e.g. that you must
show them physical proofs, before press, which they can veto; that you
cannot crop or show a detail of a painting now 200 years old; etc.,
etc.

Such “agreements” – never negotiable – mean any illustrated book
published today is a mass of little contracts. The result is that
second editions are never worth it any longer (the time, the
renegotiation, the fresh fees, etc.), and that books are frequently
unillustrated just to avoid the whole nightmare. I’ve known art
historians who had to pay £2000 out of their own pockets in order to
show details of painters no later than Rembrandt. We’re not talking
about trivial sums and a few simple emails.

Frankly I think this particular test case is not the ideal ground for
a fight, because the plundering was pretty blatant. But I’m very glad
people are fighting it, all the same. If these images do somehow
escape the NPG and get into anything resembling the public domain, it
will be an absolute good. Indeed, it will advance exactly the cause
for which the NPG was founded.


- d.