[OpenGLAM] Wellcome

Thu Jan 23 08:49:21 UTC 2014

Excellent idea.
Could everybody who is interested in such a session fill in his name in
this sheet? That will save some inboxes :)

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsMtsFcUhokqdFYwUTlhNU9GM0hXUjQ0WEMyb3JxRGc#gid=0

Cheers,

Joris

2014/1/23 Maarten Brinkerink <mbrinkerink at beeldengeluid.nl>

> +1 To the OKfest session!
>
> Sent from my smartphone
>
> > Op 23 jan. 2014 om 09:40 heeft Paul Keller <pk at kl.nl> het volgende
> geschreven:
> >
> > HI Jon and all,
> > i think this is a great suggestion. we will also have a call with the
> OKFN’s openGLAM advisory board on this issue in the next weeks (still being
> scheduled) and i will make sure that look at your suggestion there. But in
> general a session (and presentation of the results?) at the OK fest this
> summer sounds like a very good idea. maybe the advisory council can prepare
> a first draft or some other form of initial input that can serve as the
> basis for such a meeting.
> > best, paul
> >
> >
> >> On 22 Jan 2014, at 22:01, Jon Voss <jon.voss at wearewhatwedo.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> This is great stuff, and a wonderful discussion of something that needs
> ongoing attention obviously. What's important to note here is that we're in
> rather uncharted territory and there are not very clear guidelines yet for
> those cultural heritage institutions wanting to share their content openly,
> and what kind of copyright and reuse is actually permitted based on any
> number of complicating factors, from fair use, location of publication,
> etc.  I've been working on a blog post for Historypin for weeks if not
> months now with help from folks at Creative Commons and Internet attorney
> Abigail Phillips to make sure I've got it right at least for historical
> photos in the US (to the extent that there is a "right').  I'll let you
> know when I finally get it out.
> >>
> >> Much like the work that Paul Keller and a crew of other folks worked on
> for open metadata at the first LODLAM Summit back in 2011, I think what's
> needed is an international gathering to try to hammer out some guidelines
> for what cultural heritage institutions *can* (purposefully not *should*)
> do when it comes to publishing content. There is licensing, there is
> discovery, there is attribution, so many things to consider, and the really
> good news is that more and more institutions are looking for answers on how
> to do this.
> >>
> >> I know there have been discussions like this in many international
> forums like the LODLAM Summits, but what to people think about convening
> some unstructured working sessions around OKFest in Berlin this summer? I'm
> not sure how that might fit into the agenda, but I think we could go a long
> way in building best practices in the cultural heritage sector that doesn't
> leave this just to the letter of the law but that creates and fosters a
> culture of openness and sharing for the public benefit.
> >>
> >> Jon
> >>
> >>
> >> Jon Voss
> >> Historypin Strategic Partnerships Director
> >> ph. 415-935-4701
> >> -------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> We Are What We Do
> >> London | San Francisco
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Jan 21, 2014, at 11:23 AM, Maarten Brinkerink wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Dear all,
> >>>
> >>> I agree the move towards openness indeed needs to be acknowledged,
> however it is also up to 'our' community to keep pointing out to these
> pioneering institutions what the next steps for them are, if they are not
> yet fully I compliance with the principles I believe we all share.
> >>>
> >>> So we need to balance between rewarding the so-called baby steps, but
> also being a bit strict about what we actually strive for. If that makes
> sense.
> >>>
> >>> Just my personal opinion.
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>>
> >>> Maarten
> >>>
> >>> Sent from my smartphone
> >>>
> >>>> Op 21 jan. 2014 om 19:41 heeft Joris Pekel <jpekel at gmail.com> het
> volgende geschreven:
> >>>>
> >>>> About CC-BY for Public Domain material. I think this is an incredibly
> difficult discussion for a number of reasons. The main one being copyright
> not being 100% clear on this, differences in countries and multiple
> interpretations.
> >>>>
> >>>> Fundamentally I agree with what has been said that it should not be
> possible to claim some form of copyright on digital representations of
> public domain works. If you agree with putting a (CC-BY) license on it, you
> also have to agree with putting a more restrictive license on the copy. At
> the same time I greatly appreciate the 'open approach' more and more
> institutions are taking. As Merete Sanderhoff's example shows, CC-BY was
> their first move into openness, leading to many more discussions and now a
> Public Domain dedication is actively discussed. I can not speak for Merete
> her institution, but I would guess this move towards Public Domain would
> have been almost impossible without this first step (correct me if I'm
> wrong).
> >>>>
> >>>> I also understand the fact that institutions really like to be
> attributed for their hard work, and that attribution even greatly increases
> the value of the public domain work as you know as a re-user it comes from
> a trusted source (see the Yellow Milkmaid case studie [1]). DPLA director
> Dan Cohen has made a great contribution to the debate around Public
> Domain/CC0 and attribution which I would all recommend you to read [2].
> >>>>
> >>>> In the end I would favour celebrating the open approach more and more
> institutions are taking and help them doing it right, in stead of opening
> the can of worms around vague copyright law and tell them they are doing it
> wrong. There is still a long way to go and by scaring people off I think
> the process will take much, much longer.
> >>>>
> >>>> Just my 2c in this discussion.
> >>>>
> >>>> Joris
> >>>>
> >>>> [1]
> http://pro.europeana.eu/documents/858566/2cbf1f78-e036-4088-af25-94684ff90dc5
> >>>> [2] http://www.dancohen.org/2013/11/26/cc0-by/
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 2014/1/21 <Jacob.Wang at natmus.dk>
> >>>> Just to chime in.
> >>>>
> >>>> Our board of directors have just agreed to make cc-by-sa the default
> license for material that we hold the rights to and that don't fall into
> CC0, which we'll use too.
> >>>>
> >>>> I agree on this license to be the best of the cc licenses.
> >>>>
> >>>> Full steam ahead! Expect huge amounts of free content from up north -
> soon :-)
> >>>>
> >>>> Jacob R. Wang
> >>>> Head of digital
> >>>>
> >>>> National Museum of Denmark
> >>>> +45 41 20 60 25
> >>>> jacob.wang at natmus.dk
> >>>>
> >>>> On Jan 21, 2014 2:50 PM, heath rezabek <heath.rezabek at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>> Having somewhat randomly sampled around, it indeed looks like they're
> using a range of licenses:  I've spotted CC BY-NC-ND, CC BY-SA, and CC BY.
>  Presumably they're trying to arbitrate either the amount of effort they've
> put in or the amount of worth they deem the images to possess.  But it also
> seems fairly arbitrary.
> >>>>
> >>>> On a philosophical level, I agree that these sorts of images should
> be decreed CC0.  On a pragmatic level, I accept that worktime and nominal
> resources were invested into conversion of the work, adding value which
> they're choosing to license.  On a personal level, I see CC BY-SA to be the
> best of the CC licenses, and the others to be either unacceptably
> restrictive or unacceptably loose.
> >>>>
> >>>> But one thing is clear; another large body has been released with
> heterogenous CC licensing, which adds weight to that precedent for future
> organizations deciding what to do.
> >>>>
> >>>> - Heath
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Paul Keller <pk at kl.nl<mailto:
> pk at kl.nl>> wrote:
> >>>> i do not think that i would agree that this is a good thing, but i do
> not really need to since the works are available under CC-BY and not
> CC-BY-SA
> >>>>
> >>>> see
> http://blog.wellcomelibrary.org/2014/01/thousands-of-years-of-visual-culture-made-free-through-wellcome-images/for the announcement and here for an example:
> http://wellcomeimages.org/indexplus/image/V0002158.html
> >>>>
> >>>> also it appears that for some of the images such as the one featured
> on the announcement page they have however chosen a more restrictive
> license (CC-BY-NC-ND) such as the image featured on the announcement page.
> see at the bottom of this image page:
> http://wellcomeimages.org/indexplus/image/L0019305.html
> >>>>
> >>>> if you accept the argument that they have copyright in the
> reproductions then you need to accept any license. this is the problem with
> being ok with them applying a cc-by license. if you accept that then you
> accept that they have copyright in the reproduction and then you should
> also be ok with CC-BY-NC-ND or © all rights reserved.
> >>>>
> >>>> /paul
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 21 Jan 2014, at 14:28, heath rezabek <heath.rezabek at gmail.com
> <mailto:heath.rezabek at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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<mailto:
> 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
> <mailto: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<mailto:
> mathias.schindler at wikimedia.de>
> >>>>>>> To: jpekel at gmail.com<mailto:jpekel at gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> CC: open-glam at lists.okfn.org<mailto:open-glam at lists.okfn.org>
> >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [OpenGLAM] Wellcome
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 2014/1/21 Joris Pekel <jpekel at gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<http://labs.vessel.cc>
> >>>>> Long Now Foundation (Intern) // Manual for Civilization Project //
> longnow.org<http://longnow.org>
> >>>>> Open Knowledge Foundation // Texas Ambassador for the OKFn //
> okfn.org<http://okfn.org>
> >>>>> Icarus Interstellar // FarMaker Team // icarusinterstellar.org<
> http://icarusinterstellar.org>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Heath Rezabek // labs.vessel.cc<http://labs.vessel.cc>
> >>>> Long Now Foundation (Intern) // Manual for Civilization Project //
> longnow.org<http://longnow.org>
> >>>> Open Knowledge Foundation // Texas Ambassador for the OKFn //
> okfn.org<http://okfn.org/>
> >>>> Icarus Interstellar // FarMaker Team // icarusinterstellar.org<
> http://icarusinterstellar.org>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> **********************************************************************
> >>>> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> >>>> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
> >>>> are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
> >>>> the system manager.
> >>>>
> >>>> Scanned by the Clearswift SECURE Email Gateway.
> >>>>
> >>>> www.clearswift.com<http://www.clearswift.com/>
> >>>> **********************************************************************
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> 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
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-glam/attachments/20140123/82814bea/attachment-0003.html>