Conversation
Notices
-
The Walters Art Museum uploads 19,000 images for use on @Wikipedia via #CC BY-SA thanks to @glamwiki: http://bit.ly/Jnrat8 #GLAM
about a year ago from Ping.fm- Neil Hodges repeated this.
-
@creativecommons Seems Walters Public Domain holdings http://www.ur1.ca/99jnm s/b CC0 not Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
-
@creativecommons Or have I missed something? If the law changed so possession confers !copyright somebody should tell Jammie Thomas
-
@laurelrusswurm agree Walters site itself problematic but https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Walters_Art_Museum_license/en clear
-
@laurelrusswurm not possession but digitization, which for physical objects only possessor can effectively do (I'm no fan of low threshold)
-
@mlinksva "the photographs and the descriptions have been released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License"
-
@mlinksva I have read #Wikipedia license pages stating direct non-transformative copies of Public Domain paintings are !PublicDomain
-
@mlinksva If a museum posesses the original and keeps it locked away they can legitimately prevent people making copies
-
@mlinksva But once a !publicdomain painting is publicly displayed on the Internet, restricting copying is !copyfraud
-
@laurelrusswurm unfortunately it isn't all that clear outside US, but I'm all for shaming institutions and policymakers into making so
-
@mlinksva "digitization" is making a COPY~ if this "low threshold" is acceptable, there IS no public domain
-
@laurelrusswurm The non-transformative photo ruling has gone differently in different countries. I know it is PD in USA.
-
@laurelrusswurm ... but I'm pretty sure I read that UK courts decided differently.
-
cut off all public funding to such museums.
-
@zotz My concern is in #CreativeCommons and #Wikipedia accepting this !copyfraud lends it legitimacy so it will become established practice
All Identi.ca content and data are available under the