Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

Re: a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc...

1 2

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

WJhonson at aol

Sep 27, 2009, 12:48 PM

Post #1 of 28 (1897 views)
Permalink

Re: a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc...

I thought that the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision basically was that a
reproduction like this enjoys no new copyright ?

W.J.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

wiki-lists at phizz

Sep 27, 2009, 1:32 PM

Post #2 of 28 (1863 views)
Permalink

Re: a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc... [In reply to]

WJhonson [at] aol wrote:
> I thought that the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision basically was that a
> reproduction like this enjoys no new copyright ?
>

I have a reproduction of Rembrandt's "Toby and Anna" whilst that
doesn't give the producer of the reproduction the right to stop me
making copies from it, it also doesn't give me or you some bizarre right
to demand digital files from the producer.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

WJhonson at aol

Sep 27, 2009, 4:37 PM

Post #3 of 28 (1868 views)
Permalink

Re: a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc... [In reply to]

In a message dated 9/27/2009 1:29:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
wiki-lists [at] phizz writes:

> I have a reproduction of Rembrandt's "Toby and Anna" whilst that
> doesn't give the producer of the reproduction the right to stop me
> making copies from it, it also doesn't give me or you some bizarre right
> to demand digital files from the producer.>>

Are we demanding? Or are we just taking without permission?

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

wiki-lists at phizz

Sep 27, 2009, 5:54 PM

Post #4 of 28 (1867 views)
Permalink

Re: a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc... [In reply to]

WJhonson [at] aol wrote:
> In a message dated 9/27/2009 1:29:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> wiki-lists [at] phizz writes:
>
>
>> I have a reproduction of Rembrandt's "Toby and Anna" whilst that
>> doesn't give the producer of the reproduction the right to stop me
>> making copies from it, it also doesn't give me or you some bizarre right
>> to demand digital files from the producer.>>
>
> Are we demanding? Or are we just taking without permission?
>

From the earlier poster Teofilo:

I disagree. I think the priority is to have the full
resolution pictures of Public Domain works.

That seems to be a demand to have the highest resolution copies possible.

In any case your earlier assertion that there was a Supreme Court
decision covering this is wrong. Bridgeman vs Corel was decided at
District Court level. Be aware that courts are quite capable of deciding
to allow an action that they approve of (making a digital copy of an
analog copy), and disallowing a similar action that they disapprove of.
And no more so than in the realm of copyright Corel simply obtained
their copies by raiding Bridgeman's computer files, you could well find
that decision reversed. There is a quantitative difference between what
Corel did and MGET *.jpg

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

WJhonson at aol

Sep 27, 2009, 7:15 PM

Post #5 of 28 (1858 views)
Permalink

Re: a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc... [In reply to]

In a message dated 9/27/2009 5:51:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
wiki-lists [at] phizz writes:

> I disagree. I think the priority is to have the full
> resolution pictures of Public Domain works.
>
> That seems to be a demand to have the highest resolution copies possible.>>
>
>

I was assuming what this meant was, If we find this image on website x and
it's a reproduction of a public domain picture/painting, then we could
simply copy it.

The request (or demand) if you will, is internal, not against the producer
of the image. That is, you don't need to *demand* the site owner do
anything, you can simply copy the image, without even informing them.

W.J.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

dgerard at gmail

Sep 28, 2009, 3:20 AM

Post #6 of 28 (1852 views)
Permalink

Re: a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc... [In reply to]

2009/9/28 <wiki-lists [at] phizz>:

> From the earlier poster Teofilo:
> I disagree. I think the priority is to have the full
> resolution pictures of Public Domain works.
> That seems to be a demand to have the highest resolution copies possible.

That sets it out as a goal, not a demand.

But getting back to the case in question - we're talking about the
sort of museum that's actually a government sub-department. Thus,
public domain images that the taxpayer has *already paid for*. I see
nothing whatsoever unreasonable about the idea of asking-to-demanding
those. They're owned by the public, not by the museum bureaucrats.

- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

cimonavaro at gmail

Sep 28, 2009, 4:35 AM

Post #7 of 28 (1850 views)
Permalink

Re: a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc... [In reply to]

David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/9/28 <wiki-lists [at] phizz>:
>
>
>> From the earlier poster Teofilo:
>> I disagree. I think the priority is to have the full
>> resolution pictures of Public Domain works.
>> That seems to be a demand to have the highest resolution copies possible.
>>
>
>
> That sets it out as a goal, not a demand.
>
> But getting back to the case in question - we're talking about the
> sort of museum that's actually a government sub-department. Thus,
> public domain images that the taxpayer has *already paid for*. I see
> nothing whatsoever unreasonable about the idea of asking-to-demanding
> those. They're owned by the public, not by the museum bureaucrats.
>
>

In defense of museums, some of them do get it. The images of
golden artifacts from the Staffordshire Hoard were immediately
released under a CC license:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/finds/sets/72157622378376316/with/3944490322/

Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

gerard.meijssen at gmail

Sep 28, 2009, 4:43 AM

Post #8 of 28 (1858 views)
Permalink

Re: a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc... [In reply to]

Hoi,
The question is if they get it. As it is published for the first time they
could claim copyright.
Thanks,
GerardM

2009/9/28 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro [at] gmail>

> David Gerard wrote:
> > 2009/9/28 <wiki-lists [at] phizz>:
> >
> >
> >> From the earlier poster Teofilo:
> >> I disagree. I think the priority is to have the full
> >> resolution pictures of Public Domain works.
> >> That seems to be a demand to have the highest resolution copies
> possible.
> >>
> >
> >
> > That sets it out as a goal, not a demand.
> >
> > But getting back to the case in question - we're talking about the
> > sort of museum that's actually a government sub-department. Thus,
> > public domain images that the taxpayer has *already paid for*. I see
> > nothing whatsoever unreasonable about the idea of asking-to-demanding
> > those. They're owned by the public, not by the museum bureaucrats.
> >
> >
>
> In defense of museums, some of them do get it. The images of
> golden artifacts from the Staffordshire Hoard were immediately
> released under a CC license:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/finds/sets/72157622378376316/with/3944490322/
>
>
> Yours,
>
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

liamwyatt at gmail

Sep 28, 2009, 9:45 PM

Post #9 of 28 (1837 views)
Permalink

Re: a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc... [In reply to]

On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro [at] gmail
> wrote:

> David Gerard wrote:
> > 2009/9/28 <wiki-lists [at] phizz>:
> >
> >
> >> From the earlier poster Teofilo:
> >> I disagree. I think the priority is to have the full
> >> resolution pictures of Public Domain works.
> >> That seems to be a demand to have the highest resolution copies
> possible.
> >>
> >
> >
> > That sets it out as a goal, not a demand.
> >
> > But getting back to the case in question - we're talking about the
> > sort of museum that's actually a government sub-department. Thus,
> > public domain images that the taxpayer has *already paid for*. I see
> > nothing whatsoever unreasonable about the idea of asking-to-demanding
> > those. They're owned by the public, not by the museum bureaucrats.
> >
> >
>
> In defense of museums, some of them do get it. The images of
> golden artifacts from the Staffordshire Hoard were immediately
> released under a CC license:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/finds/sets/72157622378376316/with/3944490322/
>
>
> Yours,
>
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>

Very interesting that you should raise the Staffordshire Hoard images as an
example. When they were first uploaded they were done so with a cc-by
license and therefore were copied across to Wikimedia Commons.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Staffordshire_hoard.jpg and appeard
on the frontpage of en.wp as the "in the news" image. However, subsequently,
the images were relicensed to cc-by-nc. Since we managed to get them when
they were indeed cc-by our copies are legal (as mentioned at the bottom of
our image page at the link I just gave). But it's an interesting that you
should raise that one as an example :-)

Also in defence of Museums, I can say very confidently that they are all
working through the tough decisions about changing licenses and coming to
grapple with this issue that we are so passionate about. Museums are a bit
like ducks: it looks like nothing is happening when you just look at a duck
floating in a pond, but underneath the water there is a lot of work going on
to move it forward - you just can't see it.

A positive experience of a Museum that we in Australia have been working
with is the "Powerhouse Museum". They wanted to make their content more open
but the discussion about changing the license of images of objects is a long
and complicated one that is still ongoing. So, they changed the license to
something that they *know* they own the rights to - the documentation. See
their post about it here:
http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/dmsblog/index.php/2009/04/02/powerhouse-collection-documentation-goes-creative-commons/I
think this a fantastic step and possibly even more valuable than the
images themselves. And, is one step in a broader strategy of encouraging
openness.

-Liam [[witty lama]]

>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

dgoodmanny at gmail

Sep 29, 2009, 1:24 PM

Post #10 of 28 (1831 views)
Permalink

Re: a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc... [In reply to]

But they have not changed the license to the pictures. What they have
only done is changed the rights to part of the documentation: the
basic info needed to say what it is is CC-BY-SA, which is very good,
the long explanation and provenance information is NC, which is
acceptable. I fail to see how this is more valuable than the images
themselves. As the free part is only factual information, anyone could
use it to write an equivalent description.

David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 12:45 AM, Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt [at] gmail> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro [at] gmail
>> wrote:
>
>> David Gerard wrote:
>> > 2009/9/28 �<wiki-lists [at] phizz>:
>> >
>> >
>> >> �From the earlier poster Teofilo:
>> >> � �I disagree. I think the priority is to have the full
>> >> � �resolution pictures of Public Domain works.
>> >> That seems to be a demand to have the highest resolution copies
>> possible.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > That sets it out as a goal, not a demand.
>> >
>> > But getting back to the case in question - we're talking about the
>> > sort of museum that's actually a government sub-department. Thus,
>> > public domain images that the taxpayer has *already paid for*. I see
>> > nothing whatsoever unreasonable about the idea of asking-to-demanding
>> > those. They're owned by the public, not by the museum bureaucrats.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> In defense of museums, some of them do get it. The images of
>> golden artifacts from the Staffordshire Hoard were immediately
>> released under a CC license:
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/finds/sets/72157622378376316/with/3944490322/
>>
>>
>> Yours,
>>
>> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>>
>
> Very interesting that you should raise the Staffordshire Hoard images as an
> example. When they were first uploaded they were done so with a cc-by
> license and therefore were copied across to Wikimedia Commons.
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Staffordshire_hoard.jpg and appeard
> on the frontpage of en.wp as the "in the news" image. However, subsequently,
> the images were relicensed to cc-by-nc. Since we managed to get them when
> they were indeed cc-by our copies are legal (as mentioned at the bottom of
> our image page at the link I just gave). But it's an interesting that you
> should raise that one as an example :-)
>
> Also in defence of Museums, I can say very confidently that they are all
> working through the tough decisions about changing licenses and coming to
> grapple with this issue that we are so passionate about. Museums are a bit
> like ducks: it looks like nothing is happening when you just look at a duck
> floating in a pond, but underneath the water there is a lot of work going on
> to move it forward - you just can't see it.
>
> A positive experience of a Museum that we in Australia have been working
> with is the "Powerhouse Museum". They wanted to make their content more open
> but the discussion about changing the license of images of objects is a long
> and complicated one that is still ongoing. So, they changed the license to
> something that they *know* they own the rights to - the documentation. See
> their post about it here:
> http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/dmsblog/index.php/2009/04/02/powerhouse-collection-documentation-goes-creative-commons/I
> think this a fantastic step and possibly even more valuable than the
> images themselves. And, is one step in a broader strategy of encouraging
> openness.
>
> -Liam [[witty lama]]
>
>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l [at] lists
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

wiki-lists at phizz

Sep 29, 2009, 5:31 PM

Post #11 of 28 (1834 views)
Permalink

Re: a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc... [In reply to]

David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/9/28 <wiki-lists [at] phizz>:
>
>> From the earlier poster Teofilo:
>> I disagree. I think the priority is to have the full
>> resolution pictures of Public Domain works.
>> That seems to be a demand to have the highest resolution copies possible.
>
>
> That sets it out as a goal, not a demand.
>

"There is no need to negociate anything. There is no need
to change a single word from the current French copyright
law. Simply have the French government's cultural institutions
(museums, archives) recognize that they have been wrong until now"

just doesn't read like a goal, its a demand.

> But getting back to the case in question - we're talking about the
> sort of museum that's actually a government sub-department. Thus,
> public domain images that the taxpayer has *already paid for*. I see
> nothing whatsoever unreasonable about the idea of asking-to-demanding
> those. They're owned by the public, not by the museum bureaucrats.
>

Whilst those digitalizations they may be owned by the French public,
they certainly aren't owned by the German public, British, Italian,
Spanish, or American public either.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

wjhonson at aol

Sep 29, 2009, 5:40 PM

Post #12 of 28 (1832 views)
Permalink

Re: a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc... [In reply to]

-----Original Message-----

From: wiki-lists [at] phizz
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l [at] lists>
Sent: Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:31 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc...

David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/9/28 <wiki-lists [at] phizz>:
>
>> From the earlier poster Teofilo:
>> I disagree. I think the priority is to have the full
>> resolution pictures of Public Domain works.
>> That seems to be a demand to have the highest resolution copies possible.
>
>
> That sets it out as a goal, not a demand.
>

"There is no need to negociate anything. There is no need
to change a single word from the current French copyright
law. Simply have the French government's cultural institutions
(museums, archives) recognize that they have been wrong until now"

just doesn't read like a goal, its a demand.

> But getting back to the case in question - we're talking about the
> sort of museum that's actually a government sub-department. Thus,
> public domain images that the taxpayer has *already paid for*. I see
> nothing whatsoever unreasonable about the idea of asking-to-demanding
> those. They're owned by the public, not by the museum bureaucrats.
>

<<Whilst those digitalizations they may be owned by the French public,
they certainly aren't owned by the German public, British, Italian,
Spanish, or American public either.>>

"The public" doesn't have national boundaries.
"The public" means all of the public, here there and elsewhere.

W.J.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

dgerard at gmail

Sep 30, 2009, 5:24 AM

Post #13 of 28 (1815 views)
Permalink

Re: a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc... [In reply to]

2009/9/30 <wiki-lists [at] phizz>:
> David Gerard wrote:

>> But getting back to the case in question - we're talking about the
>> sort of museum that's actually a government sub-department. Thus,
>> public domain images that the taxpayer has *already paid for*. I see
>> nothing whatsoever unreasonable about the idea of asking-to-demanding
>> those. They're owned by the public, not by the museum bureaucrats.

> Whilst those digitalizations they may be owned by the French public,
> they certainly aren't owned by the German public, British, Italian,
> Spanish, or American public either.

And limiting them is to the benefit of ... ?

- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

teofilowiki at gmail

Sep 30, 2009, 7:55 AM

Post #14 of 28 (1810 views)
Permalink

Re: a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc... [In reply to]

I should have said it in my previous message : the first and foremost
priority for France, is that Government-owned museums allow visitors
who paid their entrance ticket to carry a camera and take pictures of
paintings and sculptures when the painters and sculptors died more
than 70 years ago.

In 2005, the Government-owned Guimet museum in Paris, which is famous
for its Chinese and Japanese art collections, asked for 50� for each
non-commercial-purpose photographic shot and 5000� for a
commercial-purpose shot (1).

Telling the Museum administrators that we want to use their pictures
taken by their photographers is not the best message. The best message
is : allow every camera carrying citizen to take his own pictures.

If they want to contribute to Wikipedia with photographs taken by
their photographers, it is OK but it is not a priority.

(1) http://web.archive.org/web/20050305062057/www.museeguimet.fr/homes/home_id20392_u1l2.htm

2009/9/28, David Gerard <dgerard [at] gmail>:
> 2009/9/28 <wiki-lists [at] phizz>:
>
> > From the earlier poster Teofilo:
> > I disagree. I think the priority is to have the full
> > resolution pictures of Public Domain works.
> > That seems to be a demand to have the highest resolution copies possible.
>
>
> That sets it out as a goal, not a demand.
>
> But getting back to the case in question - we're talking about the
> sort of museum that's actually a government sub-department. Thus,
> public domain images that the taxpayer has *already paid for*. I see
> nothing whatsoever unreasonable about the idea of asking-to-demanding
> those. They're owned by the public, not by the museum bureaucrats.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

teofilowiki at gmail

Sep 30, 2009, 7:58 AM

Post #15 of 28 (1806 views)
Permalink

Re: a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc... [In reply to]

That was not the right link. Good link :

http://web.archive.org/web/20050208203749/http://www.museeguimet.fr/pages/page_id18315_u1l2.htm

2009/9/30, Teofilo <teofilowiki [at] gmail>:
> (1) http://web.archive.org/web/20050305062057/www.museeguimet.fr/homes/home_id20392_u1l2.htm

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

chiesa.marco at gmail

Sep 30, 2009, 9:08 AM

Post #16 of 28 (1812 views)
Permalink

Re: a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc... [In reply to]

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Teofilo <teofilowiki [at] gmail> wrote:
> I should have said it in my previous message : the first and foremost
> priority for France, is that Government-owned museums allow visitors
> who paid their entrance ticket to carry a camera and take pictures of
> paintings and sculptures when the painters and sculptors died more
> than 70 years ago.

I partly agree, but keep in mind that the reason why some museum do
not let visitors take photos is not necessarily copyright. For
example, flashes can damage paintings, and I wouldn't like to visit a
crowded museum slaloming between hundreds of photographers with
tripods trying to take a picture of every single work of art present.
>
> In 2005, the Government-owned Guimet museum in Paris, which is famous
> for its Chinese and Japanese art collections, asked for 50� for each
> non-commercial-purpose photographic shot and 5000� for a
> commercial-purpose shot �(1).

Interesting. However, I'm not sure whether it refers to a
(semi)professional shot which may require using tripods, maybe closing
the room for some time to allow taking pictures and maybe use the
museum as the stage for something else, or this is what they charge a
visitor which wants to take a photo of his son next to a Japanese
dragon. Anyway, it is interesting to see that art editors are
considered as non-profit.

>
> Telling the Museum administrators that we want to use their pictures
> taken by their photographers is not the best message. The best message
> is : allow every camera carrying citizen to take his own pictures.

What we want to say is that they or their photographers do not have
the right to claim copyright on the photos, and that they have to
rethink this business model. Of course it is a "wrong" message from
their point of view, and of course they have every right not to
publish the high-resolution image their photographer took (in the old
days you could read it as they don't have to let you access the
negative), but if they choose to publish them they cannot stop people
making their own copies and using them for whatever reason. (I'm
assuming PD-art applies to France, otherwise it's only a matter of
good will)

Cruccone

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

saintonge at telus

Sep 30, 2009, 1:40 PM

Post #17 of 28 (1800 views)
Permalink

Re: a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc... [In reply to]

Marco Chiesa wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Teofilo wrote:
>
>> I should have said it in my previous message : the first and foremost
>> priority for France, is that Government-owned museums allow visitors
>> who paid their entrance ticket to carry a camera and take pictures of
>> paintings and sculptures when the painters and sculptors died more
>> than 70 years ago.
>>
> I partly agree, but keep in mind that the reason why some museum do
> not let visitors take photos is not necessarily copyright. For
> example, flashes can damage paintings, and I wouldn't like to visit a
> crowded museum slaloming between hundreds of photographers with
> tripods trying to take a picture of every single work of art present.
>
Of course, photo technology has developed to a point where flash or
tripods are no longer necessary for getting a decent picture.

As I have understood it tripods are banned because some can damage
museum floors, or leave ugly black streaks on the floor that are
difficult to clean.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

wiki-lists at phizz

Sep 30, 2009, 2:58 PM

Post #18 of 28 (1801 views)
Permalink

Re: a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc... [In reply to]

wjhonson [at] aol wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: wiki-lists [at] phizz
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l [at] lists>
> Sent: Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:31 pm
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc...
>
>
>
> David Gerard wrote:
>> 2009/9/28 <wiki-lists [at] phizz>:
>>
>>> From the earlier poster Teofilo:
>>> I disagree. I think the priority is to have the full
>>> resolution pictures of Public Domain works.
>>> That seems to be a demand to have the highest resolution copies possible.
>>
>> That sets it out as a goal, not a demand.
>>
>
> "There is no need to negociate anything. There is no need
> to change a single word from the current French copyright
> law. Simply have the French government's cultural institutions
> (museums, archives) recognize that they have been wrong until now"
>
>
> just doesn't read like a goal, its a demand.
>
>
>> But getting back to the case in question - we're talking about the
>> sort of museum that's actually a government sub-department. Thus,
>> public domain images that the taxpayer has *already paid for*. I see
>> nothing whatsoever unreasonable about the idea of asking-to-demanding
>> those. They're owned by the public, not by the museum bureaucrats.
>>
>
>
> <<Whilst those digitalizations they may be owned by the French public,
> they certainly aren't owned by the German public, British, Italian,
> Spanish, or American public either.>>
>
>
> "The public" doesn't have national boundaries.
> "The public" means all of the public, here there and elsewhere.
>

You are confused. Lets parse the quote shall we?

"Thus, public domain images that the taxpayer has *already paid for*."

would be the digitization of the images that the French taxpayers have
paid for. The following sentence:

"They're owned by the public, not by the museum bureaucrats."

refers to the digitizations that the public (the French taxpayers) have
paid for. It can't possibly refer to the images themselves because in
most cases those images were either given to the Nation by their owners
in lieu if taxes, confiscated, or stolen during periods of war and
colonialism.

As such we aren't taking about "'The public' means all of the public,
here there and elsewhere." but a specific set of national taxpayers.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

wjhonson at aol

Sep 30, 2009, 3:03 PM

Post #19 of 28 (1808 views)
Permalink

Re: a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc... [In reply to]

-----Original Message-----

From: wiki-lists [at] phizz
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l [at] lists>
Sent: Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:58 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc...

wjhonson [at] aol wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: wiki-lists [at] phizz
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l [at] lists>
> Sent: Tue, Sep 29, 2009 5:31 pm
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with
the Frenc...
>
>
>
> David Gerard wrote:
>> 2009/9/28 <wiki-lists [at] phizz>:
>>
>>> From the earlier poster Teofilo:
>>> I disagree. I think the priority is to have the full
>>> resolution pictures of Public Domain works.
>>> That seems to be a demand to have the highest resolution copies possible.
>>
>> That sets it out as a goal, not a demand.
>>
>
> "There is no need to negociate anything. There is no need
> to change a single word from the current French copyright
> law. Simply have the French government's cultural institutions
> (museums, archives) recognize that they have been wrong until now"
>
>
> just doesn't read like a goal, its a demand.
>
>
>> But getting back to the case in question - we're talking about the
>> sort of museum that's actually a government sub-department. Thus,
>> public domain images that the taxpayer has *already paid for*. I see
>> nothing whatsoever unreasonable about the idea of asking-to-demanding
>> those. They're owned by the public, not by the museum bureaucrats.
>>
>
>
> <<Whilst those digitalizations they may be owned by the French public,
> they certainly aren't owned by the German public, British, Italian,
> Spanish, or American public either.>>
>
>
> "The public" doesn't have national boundaries.
> "The public" means all of the public, here there and elsewhere.
>

You are confused. Lets parse the quote shall we?

"Thus, public domain images that the taxpayer has *already paid for*."

would be the digitization of the images that the French taxpayers have
paid for. The following sentence:

"They're owned by the public, not by the museum bureaucrats."

refers to the digitizations that the public (the French taxpayers) have
paid for. It can't possibly refer to the images themselves because in
most cases those images were either given to the Nation by their owners
in lieu if taxes, confiscated, or stolen during periods of war and
colonialism.

As such we aren't taking about "'The public' means all of the public,
here there and elsewhere." but a specific set of national taxpayers.>>
------------------

Okay let's parse the meaning.
Once an image has "been paid for" and is "in the public domain", that means that
anyone, in this country, the next, or on Venus can use the image.

Whether or not the person who said "paid for by the taxpayers" was being specific
to a certain country or using a loose phrase, isn't really relevant.

The image is in the public domain. That's the point.
Public means all public, not limited to the whims of what the boundary of a certain
country might be today.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

wiki-lists at phizz

Sep 30, 2009, 3:49 PM

Post #20 of 28 (1802 views)
Permalink

Re: a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc... [In reply to]

Teofilo wrote:
> I should have said it in my previous message : the first and foremost
> priority for France, is that Government-owned museums allow visitors
> who paid their entrance ticket to carry a camera and take pictures of
> paintings and sculptures when the painters and sculptors died more
> than 70 years ago.
>

I was in the Loire-et-Cher region a couple of weeks back and photography
was allowed in nearly all the locations we visited. In the places which
did have signs up saying "No photography" no one was taking any notice
at all, not even the staff.

In addition I had the Mairies open up the churches to record medieval
frescoes, monuments, baptismal fonts, stained glass, paintings, stone
carvings, etc. No problem at all. Most of them seemed genuinely pleased
that someone was taking an interest. In a couple of places, as I was
finishing a local dignitary would turn up to point out something I might
have missed.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

wiki-lists at phizz

Sep 30, 2009, 4:17 PM

Post #21 of 28 (1805 views)
Permalink

Re: a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc... [In reply to]

wjhonson [at] aol wrote:
>
> The image is in the public domain. That's the point.
> Public means all public, not limited to the whims of what the boundary of a certain
> country might be today.
>

Suppose someone goes into the Louvre not with a camera but with a laser
scanner. they digitize the entire statue, convert the point cloud into
surfaces, and then from the surfaces into CNC program files. Finally
they slap a block of marble on a milling machine and mill out an exact
copy of the original. Whilst they don't get to obtain any copyright on
the copy YOU don't get to claim that the CNC files are yours of right.

Same with the digitization of a painting.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

wjhonson at aol

Sep 30, 2009, 4:23 PM

Post #22 of 28 (1800 views)
Permalink

Re: a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc... [In reply to]

-----Original Message-----

From: wiki-lists [at] phizz
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l [at] lists>
Sent: Wed, Sep 30, 2009 4:17 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc...

wjhonson [at] aol wrote:
>
> The image is in the public domain. That's the point.
> Public means all public, not limited to the whims of what the boundary of a
certain
> country might be today.
>

Suppose someone goes into the Louvre not with a camera but with a laser
scanner. they digitize the entire statue, convert the point cloud into
surfaces, and then from the surfaces into CNC program files. Finally
they slap a block of marble on a milling machine and mill out an exact
copy of the original. Whilst they don't get to obtain any copyright on
the copy YOU don't get to claim that the CNC files are yours of right.

Same with the digitization of a painting.>>
--------------------

Are you believing that I'm stating there is a right to claim anything?
Because if you are, I never did. I stated quite the opposite.
Once something is in the "public domain" in any country, then you can use it.
That is what I stated, and nothing more.

Turning a 3-d statue into a series of computer data files is quite a different
animal from turning a 2-d painting into a exactly reproduced photograph.

A photographic copy, adhering to the original painting, does not enjoy
a new copyright. A photograph of a painting which is in the public domain
does not enjoy any new rights. Once that photograph is posted online,
anyone can make a copy of it and do whatever they want with it.

To prevent that, all you have to do, is take a photograph of the Mona Lisa
and include your girlfriend standing next to it. That would make it unique
and not merely an exact copy of the painting.

I have never stated that you have a "right to demand" the photograph.
I've only stated, that the photographer does not have a right to
order you to cease. Quite a different animal.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

wiki-lists at phizz

Sep 30, 2009, 5:22 PM

Post #23 of 28 (1800 views)
Permalink

Re: a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc... [In reply to]

wjhonson [at] aol wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: wiki-lists [at] phizz
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l [at] lists>
> Sent: Wed, Sep 30, 2009 4:17 pm
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> wjhonson [at] aol wrote:
>> The image is in the public domain. That's the point.
>> Public means all public, not limited to the whims of what the boundary of a
> certain
>> country might be today.
>>
>
>
> Suppose someone goes into the Louvre not with a camera but with a laser
> scanner. they digitize the entire statue, convert the point cloud into
> surfaces, and then from the surfaces into CNC program files. Finally
> they slap a block of marble on a milling machine and mill out an exact
> copy of the original. Whilst they don't get to obtain any copyright on
> the copy YOU don't get to claim that the CNC files are yours of right.
>
> Same with the digitization of a painting.>>
> --------------------
>
> Are you believing that I'm stating there is a right to claim anything?
> Because if you are, I never did. I stated quite the opposite.
> Once something is in the "public domain" in any country, then you can use it.
> That is what I stated, and nothing more.
>

"Once an image has "been paid for" and is "in the public domain",
that means that anyone, in this country, the next, or on Venus
can use the image."

This entire discussion is concerned not with the work per se but with
particular digital encodings of the work. Where some seem to think that
just because the work is PD there is a right to all encodings of that
work. If that isn't what is being claimed here then there is no problem,
the museums are under no obligation to provide any digital representation.

> Turning a 3-d statue into a series of computer data files is quite a different
> animal from turning a 2-d painting into a exactly reproduced photograph.
>

It is exactly the same thing. The CNC files are exactly equivalent to a
jpeg. So I can't quite see why you'd consider them different.

> A photographic copy, adhering to the original painting, does not enjoy
> a new copyright. A photograph of a painting which is in the public domain
> does not enjoy any new rights. Once that photograph is posted online,
> anyone can make a copy of it and do whatever they want with it.
>

The posited CNC files do exactly the same thing: they adhere to the
original statue. In all probability they encode the reproduction of the
original object more exactly then a jpeg encodes the reproduction of a
painting. Logically under this doctrine that the digital encoding is the
work if say some disgruntled employee were to post them online then
"anyone can make a copy of it and do whatever they want with it."

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

wjhonson at aol

Sep 30, 2009, 6:27 PM

Post #24 of 28 (1797 views)
Permalink

Re: a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc... [In reply to]

I think everyone is probably a bit tired of this topic so this will be my last response.

You keep positing that someone is espousing that the museums have to actively participate in providing copies of something to someone.? Has somebody claimed that?? If they did, it wasn't me.? I have never claimed, and wouldn't claim, under any sort of copyright issue, that the holder of anything is required to do anything at all.? Or has any obligation, legal or moral to do anything.? The "doing" on their part is an active participation and I've never claimed that the museum has to be active in any regard in this issue.

What I have claimed is that the purported claimant, cannot stop a seizure.? If I take, without permission, without asking, without requiring anything from you.? Just take, you cannot claim that I've in violation of some perceived copyright.? That is quite different from stating that they must provide the material to anyone, or are required to, or should feel required to.

W.J.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

jim at scrubnugget

Sep 30, 2009, 7:15 PM

Post #25 of 28 (1809 views)
Permalink

Re: a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc... [In reply to]

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 19:22, <wiki-lists [at] phizz> wrote:

> Where some seem to think that
> just because the work is PD there is a right to all encodings of that
> work.
>

To use an extreme hypothetical example: The novel "Pride and Prejudice" is
in the public domain. It will take me a long time to retype the entire
thing into a text file. If my copy is verbatim - that is, if I have
faithfully transcribed the original manuscript - then has the sweat of my
brow earned me the right to claim copyright on my text file?

Under US case law, the answer is pretty clearly "no". Jane Austen did the
actual writing, and I was just making a copy (albeit in a different
format). Copyright only applies to new creative works, and here I have not
done anything creative, so no new copyright applies. I can only claim my
own copyright in this case if I contribute some creativity of my own - for
example, by adapting the novel into a screenplay, or by reworking the plot
to include zombies. (Unfortunately, somebody has already beaten me to the
zombie bit.)

UK law is a little fuzzy here, but presumably my text file would not merit
its own copyright there. (If I am wrong, and it would, then somebody please
let me know - I'll need to book a flight right away.)

Now, I'll admit, this example is ridiculous compared to a JPEG of a
public-domain painting, laser scans of a public-domain sculpture, or an Ogg
Vorbis clip of a public-domain sound recording. However, the fundamental
argument remains: the act of *creation* is what earns copyright, not the act
of faithful transcription.

--
Jim Redmond
[[User:Jredmond]]
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

1 2

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads