[OpenGLAM] FW: Wellcome

Tue Jan 21 13:36:39 UTC 2014

but that still does not explain how we can simply apply the doctrine given that there are more recent cases that require some originality such as the one highlighted in my earlier mail: 

> However, in March 2012, a case was taken to the European Court of Justice, in which Football DataCo claimed copyright infringement over web sites which were reproducing match schedules from several major football leagues. Football DataCo asserted that these schedules were copyrighted works due to the skill and labour involved in their preparation, and that the company was given exclusive rights to license their reproduction. Based on its interpretation of British law, the court rejected the notion that labour and skill was enough to grant protection to a work, since "unless the procedures for creating the lists concerned as described by the national court are supplemented by elements reflecting originality in the selection or arrangement of the data contained in those lists, they do not suffice for those lists to be protected by the copyright laid down in the directive.”

/paul 

On 21 Jan 2014, at 14:32, Doug Rocks-Macqueen <doug at landward.org> wrote:

> Sorry it is "sweat of the brow", not "sweat of the labour" and 1900 court case Walter vs. Lane- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_v_Lane I was going off of memory and should have check facts first before sending the email.
> 
> Doug
> 
> 
> Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 07:28:32 -0600
> Subject: Re: [OpenGLAM] FW: Wellcome
> From: heath.rezabek at gmail.com
> To: pk at kl.nl
> CC: doug at landward.org; open-glam at lists.okfn.org
> 
> Whatever the reason, given that PD remain subsequently open to being re-locked in, I am actually glad to see CC BY-SA used.  At the least, the SA licenses are the only ones to even attempt to ensure that the material continues to be adaptable.
> 
> Disney turned an early career at re-locking PD folktales into a media empire.  They wouldn't touch something that was CC BY-SA.  Purity aside, that thought experiment comes up in favor of CC BY-SA to me.
> 
> - Heath
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Paul Keller <pk at kl.nl> wrote:
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Heath Rezabek // labs.vessel.cc
> Long Now Foundation (Intern) // Manual for Civilization Project // longnow.org
> Open Knowledge Foundation // Texas Ambassador for the OKFn // okfn.org
> Icarus Interstellar // FarMaker Team // icarusinterstellar.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-glam/attachments/20140121/1002b916/attachment-0003.html>