[OpenGLAM] Fwd: Licensing of digital images

[Sarah Stierch]

The Walters continues to be a great partner in these projects.

I swear on my open culture soul that I'll be drafting the case study for 
the Walters very soon. :)

-Sarah

On 1/9/13 9:22 AM, Adam Green wrote:
> Woo hoo!
>
> We need to have some kind of page of honour for institutions like teh 
> Walters taking the good step forward - I'm planning something for PDR, 
> but also maybe would be good for Open Glam, have you thought about this?
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Dylan Kinnett* <dkinnett at thewalters.org 
> <mailto:dkinnett at thewalters.org>>
> Date: 9 January 2013 16:37
> Subject: Re: Licensing of digital images
> To: William Noel <wgnoel at upenn.edu <mailto:wgnoel at upenn.edu>>, Adam 
> Green <adam.green at publicdomainreview.org 
> <mailto:adam.green at publicdomainreview.org>>
> Cc: Lynley Herbert <lherbert at thewalters.org 
> <mailto:lherbert at thewalters.org>>
>
>
> Adam,
>
> Work is ongoing to have our licensing language revised on the
> manuscripts-related pages, to remove the non-commercial clause from it. We
> hope to have this revision in place within a few days.
>
> I'll be sure to let you know as soon as that's in place, but if you wold
> like to proceed with your use of these materials in advance of the revised
> license, you are free to do so.
>
> Also, please feel free to let me know if you have any other questions,
> comments or concerns.
>
> --
> Dylan Kinnett: Web & Social Media Manager at The Walters Art Museum
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 1/9/13 11:33 AM, "William Noel" <wgnoel at upenn.edu 
> <mailto:wgnoel at upenn.edu>> wrote:
>
> >Dear Adam
> >
> >I write very concisely because I have no time, but thanks for your email.
> >1) The Walters Open initiative started with the manuscripts, but it
> >started non-commercial.
> >2) The Walters as a whole went the whole nine yards a couple of years
> >later, But the manuscripts has yet to work on changing its metedata about
> >licensing, which is embedded, and needs careful thought.
> >3) However, The Manuscripts are in fact available under the same
> >conditions as the rest of the Walters images, and could be used by you. I
> >just wish it said so.
> >4) I no longer work at the Walters. I would love it if you could
> >celebrate our manuscript images, and I am copying this email to Dylan
> >Kinnett at The walters, who I hope can reassure you that this is the 
> case.
> >
> >I am sorry I cannot be clearer. I hope you will take things up with 
> Dylan.
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >Will
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Adam Green" <adam.green at publicdomainreview.org 
> <mailto:adam.green at publicdomainreview.org>>
> >To: wgnoel at upenn.edu <mailto:wgnoel at upenn.edu>
> >Sent: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 9:03:18 AM
> >Subject: Licensing of digital images
> >
> >Dear Will Noel,
> >
> >
> >I am the editor of The Public Domain Review -
> >http://publicdomainreview.org/ - I thought it would be easier to take the
> >conversation (that my colleague Jonathan Gray started a couple of days
> >ago) forward to email from the confines of twitter!
> >
> >
> >Firstly, I just want to say how great your digitisation project is -
> >http://www.willnoel.com/p/walters-art-museum-manuscripts.html - there is
> >some really great stuff on there!
> >
> >
> >I am a bit confused though about the licensing.
> >
> >
> >The Public Domain Review project is about celebrating works that are in
> >the public domain, and ones which specifically have remained open when
> >they have been published digitally, i.e. published under an open license
> >(that is, unrestricted, not just non-commercial)
> >
> >
> >We were really excited to learn about The Walters publishing all their
> >digital images openly, under a CC-BY license -
> >http://art.thewalters.org/license/
> >
> >
> >We see though that the digitisation project at the Walters you point to
> >is licensed under a NC license -
> >http://www.thedigitalwalters.org/04_TechnicalReadMe.html#license_and_use
> >
> >
> >Are they totally separate digitisation projects, hence the ability to
> >have these two different licenses? If so, might you consider changing the
> >NC license to one that is open? It would be great to start a conversation
> >about this!
> >
> >
> >Many thanks for your time,
> >
> >
> >Adam.
> >
> >
> >--
> >Adam Green
> >
> >Editor, The Public Domain Review
> >http://publicdomainreview.org/
> >
> >The Open Knowledge Foundation
> >http://okfn.org/
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Adam Green
>
> Editor, The Public Domain Review
> http://publicdomainreview.org/
>
> The Open Knowledge Foundation
> http://okfn.org/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-glam mailing list
> open-glam at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-glam
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-glam


-- 
*Sarah Stierch*
*/Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow/*
 >>Mind the gap! Support Wikipedia women's outreach: donate today 
<https://donate.wikimedia.org/><<
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-glam/attachments/20130109/716c8c90/attachment-0001.html>