[OpenGLAM] FW: Wellcome

Tue Jan 21 13:21:56 UTC 2014

So I will try to keep this brief so as to not annoy others on the list. The UK uses a common law system- 
from wiki- "A common law legal system is a system of law characterized by case law which is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals. Common law systems also include statutes enacted by legislative bodies, though those statutes typically either codify judicial decisions or fill in areas of the law not covered by case law. " - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law if you want more detail on common law.
In common law previous judgement carry weight in deciding future judgments. So a court case from several hundred years ago still is important today in common law countries. 
The case that in question was back when reporters copied down speeches by hand for newspapers. The question was raised about who owned copyright- the person making the speech or the person copying it for the newspaper.
The ruling came down that skill was required to copy a speech, skill being the key word, so copyright went to the copier. This was broad ruling and has been used since to cover hi-res digital images. The reasoning being skill is involved in lighting, angle, etc. to take the image. 
However, (I might be wrong so someone please correct me) this has never really been challenged in court. Wikipedia got sued awhile back but it was settled here is an article on it-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Portrait_Gallery_and_Wikimedia_Foundation_copyright_dispute) . Who wants to spends millions on a court case you might lose. So as it stands high-res images of paintings are sort of a gray area, some museums claim copyright, some don't.
Legally speaking they are being carefully and following one interpretation of the case law. 
Should they? That is debatable. You make a good point about CCO. I guess it comes down to personal preferences. I personally understand CC-BY from an organisations standpoint- you want others to know about your work (by UK law it is their work). Also- with CC-BY more people might find out about your work and use it because they saw it cited somewhere else. Just my thoughts but it is morally debatable. 
Doug

> Subject: Re: [OpenGLAM] FW:  Wellcome
> From: pk at kl.nl
> Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 13:58:51 +0100
> CC: open-glam at lists.okfn.org
> To: doug at landward.org
> 
> Dear Doug, 
> thanks for the quick reply! i have heard this a number of times, but i have also heard a number op people disputing this. Now i am not really familiar with UK law (and how 19th century court cases influence things like copyright) but it would really great if someone give a fuller explanation 
> of why there is copyright in these reproductions (or point us to one). 
> 
> That being said the fact that the welcome library has these rights does not mean that they need to license them (in the form of a CC-BY license). Instead the could apply a CC0 statement that would strip the reproductions of the rights that apply to the resolution and put them into where they belong: in the Public Domain. 
> best, Paul 
> 
> On 21 Jan 2014, at 13:53, Doug Rocks-Macqueen <doug at landward.org> wrote:
> 
> > Sorry should have sent this to the list-
> > 
> > It might be a weird quirk of UK copyright law. If someone, for example a Museum or Library, takes digital photos of painting that is in Public Domain they technically own copyright to the photo. Even though that photo is an exact replication of the painting.
> > 
> > It is from an 1800s court case about the "sweat of the labour" and the effort one takes to make a replication.
> > 
> > This means in the UK museums own the copyright to hi-res images of works that they have taken.
> > 
> > So they technically they are adding CC to the digital works not the under lying images.
> > 
> > That might explain why they needed to add CC, for UK copyright because they are in the UK.
> > 
> > It is also more clear to people who don't know about copyright and might not know that an image is in Public Domain.  
> > 
> > Doug
> > 
> > > Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 13:41:43 +0100
> > > From: mathias.schindler at wikimedia.de
> > > To: jpekel at gmail.com
> > > CC: open-glam at lists.okfn.org
> > > Subject: Re: [OpenGLAM] Wellcome
> > > 
> > > 2014/1/21 Joris Pekel <jpekel at gmail.com>:
> > > > Dear all,
> > > >
> > > > For those of you not on Twitter, yesterday the Wellcome Library announced
> > > > yesterday that they have made over 100,000 high resolution images of
> > > > manuscripts, paintings, etchings, early photography, and advertisements
> > > > available using a CC-BY license.
> > > 
> > > Thanks for the link. I am still a bit unsure how a CC-license can
> > > apply to works that are already in the public domain. In practice,
> > > people might feel obliged to attribute the source by their own
> > > editorial standards.
> > > 
> > > Mathias
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > open-glam mailing list
> > > open-glam at lists.okfn.org
> > > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-glam
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-glam
> > _______________________________________________
> > open-glam mailing list
> > open-glam at lists.okfn.org
> > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-glam
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-glam
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-glam/attachments/20140121/634aed69/attachment-0003.html>