[OpenGLAM] FW: [MCN-L] Different Copyrights / Different Image Resolutions

[Javier Ruiz]

In the UK resolution as such would not fit any copyright laws,  just
business priorities.

If it was a case of completely different images, involving different levels
of originality and skill to produce, then the museum could make the case
that one deserved copyright but not the other.

I don't think you could say one should be licensed differently though.

We should argue that images that aim to faithfully represent a source
material do not add original elements deserving new copyright,
independently of the skill involved.

But at present UK courts see it differently :-(

.
On 12 Mar 2014 15:11, "Edson, Michael" <EDSONM at si.edu> wrote:
>
> Cross-post from the Museum Computer Network listserv.
>
> Kate Blanch of the Walters (cc'd on this message) asks a good question
> about practices regarding licensing and © for the same source file
> provided to users at different resolutions.
>
> (I strongly feel that the Open Glam Principles should provide guidance and
> leadership on this issue, e.g., we should discourage the practice of
> giving away the low-resolution/low-quality files and enclosing
> bigger/better ones. I'm happy to digress on why, ad nauseam ;)
>
>
>
> On 3/12/14 10:58 AM, "Kate Blanch" <kblanch at thewalters.org> wrote:
>
> >Hello MCN,
> >This may be a rather dense question regarding copyright law...but as it's
> >outside my area of expertise I figured this community could provide a
> >great reference point. My own research is not turning up an good
> >answers/examples either!
> >
> >Do any institutions assign different copyright statements to derivatives
> >of the same image, depending on that image's resolution?
> >
> >Take for example, a photo of a Greek urn in a museum collection. Would it
> >be common practice for a high-resolution TIFF of this photo to bear a
> >"(c)Museum Institution, 2014" statement, while a medium-resolution JPG of
> >the same photo would bear a "(c) Creative Commons License"?
> >
> >Does this scenario fit within basic copyright law or guidelines?
> >If anyone is differentiating copyright statements based on image
> >resolution, do you have this policy written/documented in a shareable
way?
> >
> >Thanks for any feedback you might have!
> >
> >
> >Kate Blanch
> >Administrator, Museum Databases
> >kblanch at thewalters.org / 410.547.9000 ext. 266
> >
> >The Walters Art Museum
> >600 N. Charles Street, Baltimore MD 21201
> >www.thewalters.org<
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://www.t
> >
hewalters.org/&k=diZKtJPqj4jWksRIF4bjkw%3D%3D%0A&r=OrleOIb4%2FRXNkzweNOIBM
>
>A%3D%3D%0A&m=e4VaoWMrz%2BPs4GdFjPDJFvrR380%2Bp6TMKIvuh4Mnhsg%3D%0A&s=96702
> >00f3007a245ae1d4e6d43e7e3c6530b6893f109be1cd6d8f3632285729a>
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140312/d62f5d25/attachment-0003.html>