On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 12:35 AM, Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]> wrote: > I am talking to a few museums and archives and several of them are > interested in considering Commons for their collection. At the same time > they are also considering Flickr. > > The issue they have with Commons is its restrictions. One of the museums > said it like this: "We have done our best to ascertain the copyright status > of much of our material. We have not been able to find the original > copyright holder or someone who inherited these rights. When we post our > material to Flickr, we just remove the material when a copyright holder > turns up and asks us to. Doing it in any other way requires much more > effort. Effort that we rather spend in more productive endeavours like > digitising and annotating." > > My question is, will it be acceptable when a museum or archive provides us > with their material and when we learn about a request to take down material, > we do this when requested by the copyright holder. This is not considered > an issue with Flickr !!
Once again, if we have non-free.wikimedia.org repository, with precise rules, we wouldn't be able to have all kinds of materials which policy of Commons prohibits: * Orphan works. * Somewhat more flexible conditions for the situations like you mentioned. * Logos and other trademarks at one place. * Strictly defined fair use images (like on en.wp) at one place. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
