Mailing List Archive

On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 12:35 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am talking to a few museums and archives and several of them are
> interested in considering Commons for their collection. At the same time
> they are also considering Flickr.
>
> The issue they have with Commons is its restrictions. One of the museums
> said it like this: "We have done our best to ascertain the copyright status
> of much of our material. We have not been  able to find the original
> copyright holder or someone who inherited these rights. When we post our
> material to Flickr, we just remove the material when a copyright holder
> turns up and asks us to. Doing it in any other way requires much more
> effort. Effort that we rather spend in more productive endeavours like
> digitising and annotating."
>
> My question is, will it be acceptable when a museum or archive provides us
> with their material and when we learn about a request to take down material,
> we do this when requested by the copyright holder.  This is not considered
> an issue with Flickr !!

Once again, if we have non-free.wikimedia.org repository, with precise
rules, we wouldn't be able to have all kinds of materials which policy
of Commons prohibits:
* Orphan works.
* Somewhat more flexible conditions for the situations like you mentioned.
* Logos and other trademarks at one place.
* Strictly defined fair use images (like on en.wp) at one place.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 5:50 AM, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com> wrote:
> Once again, if we have non-free.wikimedia.org repository, with precise
> rules, we wouldn't be able to have all kinds of materials which policy
> of Commons prohibits:

... we would be able to have some kinds...

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

> Hoi.
> I am talking to a few museums and archives and several of them are
> interested in considering Commons for their collection. At the same time
> they are also considering Flickr.
>

I am not sure I understand the issue.

If we are talking about PD material, whether it is hosted on Flickr, on
the website of the museum or elsewhere, we can still use it and upload on
Commons (possibly by a bot). Example: Finnish National Gallery
http://www.ateneum.fi/ has on its site virtually all canvasses and many of
the graphic works it possesses, which gives a good overview of Finnish
painting in general. I do not see why those images which are PD can not be
uploaded on Commons. Same would apply if they hosted on Flickr.

If material is not PD, it can not be uploaded.

What is wrong with this reasoning?

Cheers
Yaroslav


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:13 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod@mccme.ru>wrote:

> I am not sure I understand the issue.
>
> If we are talking about PD material, whether it is hosted on Flickr, on
> the website of the museum or elsewhere, we can still use it and upload on
> Commons (possibly by a bot). Example: Finnish National Gallery
> http://www.ateneum.fi/ has on its site virtually all canvasses and many of
> the graphic works it possesses, which gives a good overview of Finnish
> painting in general. I do not see why those images which are PD can not be
> uploaded on Commons. Same would apply if they hosted on Flickr.
>
> If material is not PD, it can not be uploaded.
>
> What is wrong with this reasoning?
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav


I'm still puzzled on what is the right thing to do with

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/File:Shakespeare.jpg

which was deleted twice and then reuploaded.

When a museum claims to own copyright on a several hundred years piece, do
we concede?
I recall seeing many cases of bogus copyright claims being dismissed and
file kept on Commons. So what happened there?
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

If a museum or archive asserts copyright on a PD work or art, we
ignore such claims. The WMF has stated they are willing to go to court
to defend the public domain status of historic artwork (and
photographic reproductions thereof).

See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#The_position_of_the_WMF

Ryan Kaldari

> I'm still puzzled on what is the right thing to do with
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/File:Shakespeare.jpg
>
> which was deleted twice and then reuploaded.
>
> When a museum claims to own copyright on a several hundred years piece, do
> we concede?
> I recall seeing many cases of bogus copyright claims being dismissed and
> file kept on Commons. So what happened there?
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
Public Domain is a side issue. The real issue is about how to cooperate with
archives and museums. The fact that something that is in the public domain
can be used in any which way is true but largely irrelevant when you
consider that only a fraction of the material that is in archives and
museums has been digitised. It is irrelevant when it is the museums
themselves who want to digitise their material and make it available to the
public.

The issue is how do we deal with material that cannot be sourced, relevant
material that has no provenance. The question is when you have important
material that is effectively orphaned. Where the organisation that has the
material in its collection is willing to give it to us. Where the only thing
known about a collection can be as little as we got it at this date from
that person who was the son of so and so and where this was at a time when
we did not have the legalese form that satisfies our modern day copyright
jitters...

When we are to collaborate with museums and archives, we have to treat them
as partners. The real issue is how do we partner and do more then just say
"thank you". We have more to offer then Flickr, we just have to consider the
position of our partners and demonstrate this in what we do.
Thanks,
GerardM

2009/3/30 Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod@mccme.ru>

> > Hoi.
> > I am talking to a few museums and archives and several of them are
> > interested in considering Commons for their collection. At the same time
> > they are also considering Flickr.
> >
>
> I am not sure I understand the issue.
>
> If we are talking about PD material, whether it is hosted on Flickr, on
> the website of the museum or elsewhere, we can still use it and upload on
> Commons (possibly by a bot). Example: Finnish National Gallery
> http://www.ateneum.fi/ has on its site virtually all canvasses and many of
> the graphic works it possesses, which gives a good overview of Finnish
> painting in general. I do not see why those images which are PD can not be
> uploaded on Commons. Same would apply if they hosted on Flickr.
>
> If material is not PD, it can not be uploaded.
>
> What is wrong with this reasoning?
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi,
You just posted what is generally believed to be the position of the WMF.
You did not answer the question. What picture is referred to? Where are the
discussions about this picture? Is this the picture believed to be the bard
as he really looked like ??

If this is indeed the picture that is talked about, I would love to know the
motivation for its deletion. I also seem to remember that it was a featured
picture on the English Wikipedia...
Thanks,
GerardM

2009/3/30 Ryan Kaldari <kaldari@gmail.com>

> If a museum or archive asserts copyright on a PD work or art, we
> ignore such claims. The WMF has stated they are willing to go to court
> to defend the public domain status of historic artwork (and
> photographic reproductions thereof).
>
> See
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#The_position_of_the_WMF
>
> Ryan Kaldari
>
> > I'm still puzzled on what is the right thing to do with
> >
> > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/File:Shakespeare.jpg
> >
> > which was deleted twice and then reuploaded.
> >
> > When a museum claims to own copyright on a several hundred years piece,
> do
> > we concede?
> > I recall seeing many cases of bogus copyright claims being dismissed and
> > file kept on Commons. So what happened there?
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

> The real issue is about how to cooperate with
> archives and museums.



I can only underline this point of Gerard. In the end, it is always about
cooperating with other people, trying to find out what are our common
interests. Maybe those of us who are experienced with these cooperations
could make a list of arguments that are important to museums, archives,
libraries etc.? And what are their concerns we have to deal with?

Second, a picture without proper description (information about where it
comes from etc.) loses a lot of its value. This is a reason for not simply
taking things from the internet.

Kind regards
Ziko

--
Ziko van Dijk
NL-Silvolde
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/3/30 Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com>:
> Once again, if we have non-free.wikimedia.org repository, with precise
> rules, we wouldn't be able to have all kinds of materials which policy
> of Commons prohibits:
> * Orphan works.

Strictly speaking no it doesn't. For example it would allow images
that used the "the identity of an author shall be regarded as unknown
if it is not possible for a person to ascertain his identity by
reasonable inquiry; but if his identity is once known it shall not
subsequently be regarded as unknown." clause under UK law. Good luck
meeting that requirement though.

> * Somewhat more flexible conditions for the situations like you mentioned.

No. Commons lack of flexibility exists partly in order to keep things
understandable.

> * Logos and other trademarks at one place.
> * Strictly defined fair use images (like on en.wp) at one place.

This wouldn't be legal.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

>> The real issue is about how to cooperate with
>> archives and museums.
>
>
>
> I can only underline this point of Gerard. In the end, it is always about
> cooperating with other people, trying to find out what are our common
> interests. Maybe those of us who are experienced with these cooperations
> could make a list of arguments that are important to museums, archives,
> libraries etc.? And what are their concerns we have to deal with?
>
> Second, a picture without proper description (information about where it
> comes from etc.) loses a lot of its value. This is a reason for not simply
> taking things from the internet.
>
Sorry, I still do not understand.

Well, I all for cooperating with museums. Imagine though we suck and a
museum X decides to cooperate with flickr and put properly licensed and
attributed images there. We are only talking about PD-images. What
prevents us from taking these images from flickr and uploading them on
commons with proper attributon?

Cheers
Yaroslav


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

The image was deleted prior to the PD-Art policy change on Commons.

Kaldari

On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> You just posted what is generally believed to be the position of the WMF.
> You did not answer the question. What picture is referred to? Where are the
> discussions about this picture? Is this the picture believed to be the bard
> as he really looked like ??
>
> If this is indeed the picture that is talked about, I would love to know the
> motivation for its deletion. I also seem to remember that it was a featured
> picture on the English Wikipedia...
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
> 2009/3/30 Ryan Kaldari <kaldari@gmail.com>
>
>> If a museum or archive asserts copyright on a PD work or art, we
>> ignore such claims. The WMF has stated they are willing to go to court
>> to defend the public domain status of historic artwork (and
>> photographic reproductions thereof).
>>
>> See
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#The_position_of_the_WMF
>>
>> Ryan Kaldari
>>
>> > I'm still puzzled on what is the right thing to do with
>> >
>> > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/File:Shakespeare.jpg
>> >
>> > which was deleted twice and then reuploaded.
>> >
>> > When a museum claims to own copyright on a several hundred years piece,
>> do
>> > we concede?
>> > I recall seeing many cases of bogus copyright claims being dismissed and
>> > file kept on Commons. So what happened there?
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > foundation-l mailing list
>> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Дана Monday 30 March 2009 19:37:08 geni написа:
> 2009/3/30 Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com>:
> > * Logos and other trademarks at one place.
> > * Strictly defined fair use images (like on en.wp) at one place.
>
> This wouldn't be legal.

Why not?

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l