[OpenGLAM] FW: Wellcome

Thu Jan 23 08:59:46 UTC 2014

Thanks for this input, Joris. You are totally right, SMK would not have been able to consider applying PD labelling without first testing the consequences of CCBY.
I agree very much with using a pragmatic approach, combined with patiently communicating the fundamental principles of PD as the goal we are working towards.

We have an internal meeting about licensing policy at SMK now, and all the many great comments in this string will be highly valuable for me to bring to the table. So thanks y'all!

Merete

Merete Sanderhoff
Museumsinspektør/Curator
T +45 2552 7226
M +45 5074 3974
Follow me on Twitter @MSanderhoff
[cid:image001.jpg at 01CF1821.D85A55E0]

Statens Museum for Kunst
Sølvgade 48-50
DK-1307 København K
www.smk.dk<http://www.smk.dk/>

________________________________
Fra: open-glam [mailto:open-glam-bounces at lists.okfn.org] På vegne af Joris Pekel
Sendt: 21. januar 2014 19:41
Til: Jacob.Wang at natmus.dk
Cc: open-glam at lists.okfn.org
Emne: Re: [OpenGLAM] FW: Wellcome

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<mailto: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<tel:%2B45%2041%2020%2060%2025>
jacob.wang at natmus.dk<mailto:jacob.wang at natmus.dk>

On Jan 21, 2014 2:50 PM, heath rezabek <heath.rezabek at gmail.com<mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto:mathias.schindler at wikimedia.de<mailto:mathias.schindler at wikimedia.de>>
> > > To: jpekel at gmail.com<mailto:jpekel at gmail.com><mailto:jpekel at gmail.com<mailto:jpekel at gmail.com>>
> > > CC: open-glam at lists.okfn.org<mailto:open-glam at lists.okfn.org><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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><http://labs.vessel.cc>
> Long Now Foundation (Intern) // Manual for Civilization Project // longnow.org<http://longnow.org><http://longnow.org>
> Open Knowledge Foundation // Texas Ambassador for the OKFn // okfn.org<http://okfn.org><http://okfn.org>
> Icarus Interstellar // FarMaker Team // icarusinterstellar.org<http://icarusinterstellar.org><http://icarusinterstellar.org>
>

--
Heath Rezabek // labs.vessel.cc<http://labs.vessel.cc><http://labs.vessel.cc>
Long Now Foundation (Intern) // Manual for Civilization Project // longnow.org<http://longnow.org><http://longnow.org>
Open Knowledge Foundation // Texas Ambassador for the OKFn // okfn.org<http://okfn.org><http://okfn.org/>
Icarus Interstellar // FarMaker Team // icarusinterstellar.org<http://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><http://www.clearswift.com/>
**********************************************************************
_______________________________________________
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-glam/attachments/20140123/43287a12/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 5015 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-glam/attachments/20140123/43287a12/attachment-0003.jpg>