Just to stir the pot a bit:
Not every museum or archive is a "public charity." Even if that is a
particular museum's legal status, it doesn't affect the legal application of
copyright protection to any photographs it produces.
The assertion of copyright in photographs (including "visual surrogates") is
indeed a legal matter. It is a business decision whether or not to charge
money for licensing these images. There is a clear legal distinction between
the photograph as a protectable creation and the underlying object / work /
subject that appears in that photograph.
As to "theft," yes it does happen, and yes it obviously and logically results
in a loss of potential income. The question is, how much, and does it matter
in the end. And the size of the image certainly doesn't matter. A small 72dpi
image can be lifted and used in advertising on a commercial website with no
effort, resulting in a loss of significant potential licensing income. This is
simple logic. And in this particular example, it's legally simple: it's
copyright infringement, not "sharing." "There is no business model in stealing
images" -- of course there is; I've run into several, um, publishing
establishments based on that business model.
The interesting issues are in the less blatant examples -- real digital
sharing, not commercial rip-off. How do we deal with that? Because we're not
going to get anywhere by calling normative digital activity, including sharing,
"theft." And some of our institutions really do (sorry, Ken) depend on income
from image licensing, among other sources, to stay alive. We need new business
models. We need to figure out how to be Google: how to not produce a product,
not to offer anything more than thin air (a platform, access, ranking,
ones-and-zeros) and yet to make billions, become the source of all knowledge,
and take over the world.
Amalyah Keshet
Head of Image Resources & Copyright Management
The Israel Museum, Jerusalem
-----Original Message-----
From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-boun...@mcn.edu] On Behalf Of
Kenneth Hamma
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 10:40 PM
To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
Subject: Re: [MCN-L] Re image 'theft'
Regardless the size of the imagined revenue loss, the notion of 'theft' may not
be entirely appropriate here, speaking only of payment for IP licensing not
payment for services or product. Remember that the institutions mentioned so
far operate as public charities - receiving a tax benefit but also encumbered
with certain public- benefit responsibilities as a result. And leaving aside
works still under copyright, for which we all have well known obligations, as
well as works that maintain vital roles in the communities in which they were
created, these collections consist of natural specimens or creative works now
in the public domain. Who in this scenario would be thieving from whom?
For these works, the assertion of copyright in visual surrogates and metadata
is not a legal decision (so don't start with lawyers) but a business decision
that has on more than one occasion been described purely as an effort to
maintain monopoly control. Is it possible to square this with public charities
managing public domain collections?
ken
Kenneth Hamma
+1 310 270 8008
khamma at me.com
368 Patel Place
Palm Springs CA 92264
On May 5, 2009, at 12:59 PM, Proctor, Nancy wrote:
> Thanks to Matt Morgan for raising the question of who has actually
> lost revenues from putting images, even high quality ones, online. I
> share his skepticism that it's actually as big a problem as we fear. I
> suspect that it will take less effort and fewer resources to deal with
> the small number of thefts that will arise than all the wringing of
> hands and hiring of lawyers for pre-emptive action that we currently
> engage in.
>
> We're discussing business models for the Smithsonian at the moment, so
> I added Matt's comments at this link:
>
> http://smithsonian-webstrategy.wikispaces.com/message/view/Business+Mo
> dels+W
> orkshop+Real-Time+Notes/11773461
>
> This is a public wiki, so you're all welcome to participate in the
> conversation!
>
> Nancy
>
> Nancy Proctor
> Head of New Media Initiatives
> Smithsonian American Art Museum
> MRC 970 PO Box 37012
> Washington DC 20013-7012
> USA
>
> t: +1-202-633-8439
> c: +1-301-642-6257
> f: +1-202-633-8455
>
> http://www.americanart.si.edu
> http://eyelevel.si.edu/
>
> On 5/5/09 3:00 PM, "mcn-l-request at mcn.edu" <mcn-l-request at mcn.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu on behalf of Eric Johnson
>> Sent: Tue 5/5/2009 11:55 AM
>> To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
>> Subject: Re: [MCN-L] image sizes
>>
>> Matt raises an interesting point: has anybody ever had any problems
>> with people "lifting" high-quality images of your collection without
>> seeking permission and making money with them (posters, t-shirts,
>> etc.)?
>>
>> The only thing I can think of off-hand is more in the vein of taking
>> print-quality images and using them in books without permission. But
>> then again, I'm not familiar with any example of that actually
>> happening; it's just a worry passed down from higher-ups.
>>
>> But I'm curious about any specific examples of such unauthorized
>> reproduction that anybody might have.
>>
>> --E.
>>
>> Eric D. M. Johnson
>> Web Services Librarian
>> Jefferson Library, Monticello
>> P.O. Box 316
>> Charlottesville, VA 22902
>> Phone: (434) 984-7540 | Fax: (434) 984-7546
>> http://www.monticello.org/library/
>> ejohnson at monticello.org
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Morgan, Matt [mailto:matt.morgan at metmuseum.org]
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 11:44 AM
>> To: Museum Computer Network Listserv
>> Subject: Re: [MCN-L] image sizes
>>
>> I get it, definitely. There are lots of things we should be doing,
>> but don't, purely for least-cost path analysis. But it's raining like
>> crazy here so it's a good day to sit in my office and rant about one
>> of my bugbears a little bit.
>>
>> We (the museum community) have hardly ever (never?) seen a
>> significant, commercial, inappropriate, reuse of museum object
>> images. It just isn't done--there is no business model in stealing
>> images. Getting images of more than 1000px (from Flickr, for example)
>> of our objects is a trivial matter, so it cannot be that increasing
>> image sizes on our own websites will make this problem materialize.
>>
>> I am utterly, totally sympathetic to the political problems we all
>> face.
>> I just think it's time to get over this image-size thing and start
>> letting people enjoy our images instead of squinting at them or
>> blowing them up until they're fuzzy.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Matt
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum
> Computer Network (http://www.mcn.edu)
>
> To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu
>
> To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit:
> http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l
>
> The MCN-L archives can be found at:
> http://toronto.mediatrope.com/pipermail/mcn-l/
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to mcn-l, the listserv of the Museum Computer
Network (http://www.mcn.edu)
To post to this list, send messages to: mcn-l at mcn.edu
To unsubscribe or change mcn-l delivery options visit:
http://toronto.mediatrope.com/mailman/listinfo/mcn-l
The MCN-L archives can be found at:
http://toronto.mediatrope.com/pipermail/mcn-l/
