I wanted to extend my thanks for the many replies to my post. This kind of
information will be invaluable for me and my colleagues. Thanks again for being
so generous with your knowledge.
Kate
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
-Original Message-
From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu] On Behalf Of
mcn-l-requ...@mcn.edu
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 8:00 AM
To: mcn-l at mcn.edu
Subject: mcn-l Digest, Vol 103, Issue 8
Send mcn-l mailing list submissions to
mcn-l at mcn.edu
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mcn.edu/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
mcn-l-request at mcn.edu
You can reach the person managing the list at
mcn-l-owner at mcn.edu
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re:
Contents of mcn-l digest...
Today's Topics:
1. Different Copyrights / Different Image Resolutions (Glen Barnes)
2. Re: Different Copyrights / Different Image Resolutions
(Bryan Kennedy)
3. Unsubscribe (Rothbaum, Rachel)
--
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 10:28:28 +1300
From: Glen Barnes g...@mytoursapp.com
To: mcn-l at mcn.edu
Subject: [MCN-L] Different Copyrights / Different Image Resolutions
Message-ID:
CAJ4dvGr2hDxO2=A7sb_A4OtBfexbx6AiE55pfoWc1nU9n=2vag at mail.gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Hi Kate,
Speaking from an NZ perspective here. I've found that in NZ institutions tend
to limit access to higher quality images and have separate licensing on these
(rather than copyright). You are free to use the web published version but if
you want anything extra then you need to jump through hoops to get a high res
version, possibly pay for it and agree to restrictive licensing terms. It is
changing but only slowly.
Also in response to this comment:
There can be no valid copyright in images that are merely slavish
reproductions of two-dimensional works, no matter that some institutions may
continue to make such claims. So with respect to those slavish types of
images, questions about resolution and size are simply irrelevant from a legal
perspective -- and no CC license attached to any such image could be valid.
Maybe in the US but in NZ organisations are claiming copyright over scanned
photos and other images. I don't think this has been tested in court. IANAL so
I don't know if they have valid claims or not.
Thanks,
Glen
--
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 16:39:38 -0500
From: Bryan Kennedy bkenn...@smm.org
To: Museum Computer Network Listserv mcn-l at mcn.edu
Subject: Re: [MCN-L] Different Copyrights / Different Image
Resolutions
Message-ID:
CAMMAFbUSPF5N1VzyGr=q_GO_srZKMY+LSiZtb70bOjcmB8bRGQ at mail.gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
I'd never heard the term slavish in relation to copyright. This wikipedia
article does a pretty good job of describing the court case, that I
think(?) is the origin of this usage.
Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp.
Looks like there are some open questions about how this decision applies
outside the US.
bk
bryan kennedy
director, exhibit media
science museum of minnesota
bkennedy at smm.org 651.221.2522
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Virginia Rutledge virginiarutledge at
yahoo.com wrote:
Hello All --
It's always worth noting that a fair use can be made of any image, no
matter theresolution or size.
Whether and how an institution chooses to control access to images of
works in its care is of course a different question. Michael points to
some great examples of institutions that are opting to provide more
access to images of art -- in many cases, art which is itself no longer in
copyright.
Which leads to another important point about proper and improper
assertions of copyright --
There can be no valid copyright in images that are merely slavish
reproductions of two-dimensional works, no matter that some
institutions may continue to make such claims. So with respect to
those slavish types of images, questions about resolution and size
are simply irrelevant from a legal perspective -- and no CC license
attached to any such image could be valid.
Photographs of objects, installations, architecture, performance
(etc.) often need to be treated differently. Those images may be
properly copyrighted.
But on the question of claiming a separate copyright in any image
merely because of a difference in resolution or size, the right answer
from the legal
