On 11/5/09 12:36 AM, David Gerard wrote: > 2009/11/4 Caroline Ford<[email protected]>: > >> Can they really claim copyright and licensing are different like this? > > > It strikes me as complete bollocks. > > Mind you, when an institution makes bollocks claims like this, the > likely best course of action would be for a GLAM diplomacy specialist > to have a quiet word with them and see what can be done ... but if > images end up on Commons and are OK from a copyright perspective per > our rules, then they'll likely stick. I'm not sure any GLAM wants to > be the next NPG.
Their claims are also very vague; the only that they explicitly claim is that if you want to *get* a high-resolution version to use commercially they will happily take your money in exchange. They don't actually _say_ that they can charge you for using the available online files commercially, and seem to be carefully sidestepping it. :) -- brion _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
