[MCN-L] Image Sizes
Stanley: The decision in the Bridgeman v. Corel case is binding upon the two parties in that case, period. It is neither legislation nor a Supreme Court decision, and therefore is not law. It is not a change in the US copyright law, nor a new fair use exception. It is a precedent that may be taken into consideration by a court deciding future cases. And it obviously has no bearing on the copyright laws of other countries. 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 Stanley Smith Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 10:21 PM To: mcn-l at mcn.edu Subject: Re: [MCN-L] Image Sizes If you think that your images are not out there, you are mistaken. At the Getty we have taken pains to manage how our images migrate from our walls, but a quick Google image search of Irises and Van Gogh will yield hundreds of hits (the most hilarious of which is a line of dog-themed ceramic plates with the painting serving as background to visages of various breeds). This is not too concerning, as the artwork itself is in the public domain, and Bridgeman v. Corel says that we can't claim photographic copyright-so all's fair in love and war. Speaking of Bridgeman, though, I recently tried to order a print of the same painting from Bridgeman's website. I am conducting research for a possible print-on-demand service at the Getty --(yes Will, if there is money to be made we should be the ones making it!) -- I wanted to see what other commercial ventures were doing with our images-mostly a quality survey. I foolish used my Getty mailing address when placing the order (a 20 x 24 archival inkjet print on fine-art paper for about $70). Two days later I got an email from Bridgeman stating: We regret to inform you that your order of 'Irises,1889' (supplier code BAL40070) cannot be processed due to the transparency being unsuitable for reproduction. The Bridgeman Art Library have advised that the quality of this particular print would be compromised by enlarging it beyond the image size and as a result we have been forced to cancel and refund your order. The image will be removed from our site within the next couple of days to avoid any future disappointment. Even Bridgeman was nervous about copyright issues! Irises was removed from their website the next day. There is really no possible way to prevent your images from getting out in the world. Those CD's or transparencies that you have sent for scholar requests or publications over the years are still out there, and can fall into any number of hands. Current imaging software is very good at rezing up small image image files into ones that can be used for print. Current stitching software can easily reconstruct Zoomify panes into a very high resolution image. Even if you disable the ability to right-click an image for download, nothing can stop someone from using a screen grab. The best we can do, I think, is to make sure that recipients of our images know exactly what their usage rights are. But we should not be surprised when some people ignore our directives. The PLUS coalition has a great product that helps track and enforce image rights, and they are developing a profile that is specific to museums. A couple of years ago I was exploring other ways to track our images in the cloud. As a test, I gave a company called Idee a set of 400 jpegs of paintings from our collection. They had developed software that crawls the web looking for images based not on text data, but on the images themselves. The results of this test were astonishing-they had hundreds of hits. Ultimately it was not technology that we were willing to adopt-one reason was who has time to sent hundreds of cease-and-desist letters to obscure websites, some of which may have had the images legitimately? Stanley Smith Manager, Imaging Services J. Paul Getty Museum 1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90049-1687 (310) 440-7286 ___ 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/
[MCN-L] Re image 'theft'
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
[MCN-L] Subject: Re: image sizes
Hi all, I have been following your thread about image use. We at Maine Memory Network (Maine Historical Society) will provide our low res images (watermarked and 625 pixels wide) for nothing from the site for educational use only. If publishers or retailers want to use our images, we charge for a high resolution image that can be found on our site VintageMaineImages.com or they can order over the phone and we FTP the image to them. It takes time to fulfill orders and to scan and catalog our items so basically the charges cover the staff person who handles all the requests. We bring in $1000-2000 per month selling our images to small publishers, the Martha Stewart show, LL Bean, and other outfits. We need the extra income to keep that service alive, otherwise we couldn't offer it. We only had one instance where someone right-clicked and saved all kinds of images from our mainememory.net site, cropped off the watermarks and created a DVD that they sold. We found out about it and sent a letter to the producer and told them to stop immediately. It was a teacher so we felt she should have known better. It was the principle of the whole thing. We would have struck a bargain with her, if only she had asked. The images she used were not just Maine Historical Society collections since Maine Memory is a site with over 200 participating organizations. Kathy Kathy Bolduc Amoroso Director of Digital Projects kamoroso at mainehistory.org or kathy at mainememory.net Maine Historical Society, 489 Congress Street, Portland, ME 04101 (207)774-1822 x227 | www.mainehistory.org | www.mainememory.net
[MCN-L] Museum education research and evaluation - Call to list projects
May 6, 2009 Are you currently researching or evaluating any aspect of museum education or interpretation? If so, I would like to list your ongoing research in MUSEUM EDUCATION MONITOR (MEM), my monthly e-newsletter. I welcome listings by museum workers, consultants, faculty, and students at all levels of study. To assist these research efforts, I continue to offer a free introductory one-year subscription to any student in a museum education-related course or program. Visit http://www.mccastle.com/Public/MEM.aspx for details. (I also offer a complimentary one-year subscription to any museum educator who is currently unwaged. Contact me at chris at mccastle.com for details.) To share research or evaluation with others around the world, please send an e-mail to mem at mccastle.com that includes: - name of project - question(s) [no more than 50 words, please] - how the data will be presented - principal researcher(s)/ evaluator(s) - site(s) where research is being conducted - time span - contact information - key words/labels to describe the project [no more than 4 or 5, please]. For possible labels from past listings, sign in to the MEM blog, FORUM: Research and Resources in Museum Education at http://forum.mccastle.com/. All listings are free of charge and displayed in their language of origin. Deadline for the May MEM is Friday, May 15. Please get in touch for more information about this call or to discuss your research. I look forward to hearing from you! M. Christine Castle, Editor, Museum Education Monitor mem at mccastle.com For more information about Museum Education Monitor or to subscribe see http://www.mccastle.com (As always, please excuse cross-postings. I try to extend the call as widely as possible. Inevitably many of us are subscribed to several electronic discussion lists related to museum education. For those who are, your patience is appreciated. CC.}
[MCN-L] Image Sizes
Amalyah, Without giving legal advice, I do think it is important to note that Bridgeman is law within the Southern District of New York (and many commentators believe it would be followed not only in the Second Circuit, but other US circuit courts as well). Should any of the many museums who are within the SDNY jurisdiction seek to contest or overturn that ruling, they would have to go to court. Of course, business practices aren't always strictly legal, even when they're standard, and business practices aren't necessarily litigated, even when they are illegal. It would be really interesting to see some hard numbers on profit and cost with respect to museum image licensing practices generally -- not just the licensing of images of two-dimensional works in the public domain that was at issue in Bridgeman -- from a lot of museums. There have been a few studies, I realize, but none comprehensive or, many think, conclusive. However, I've been told by a number of people that their organizations would either not be able to determine those numbers, because for example they don't track and analyze staff time involved, and/or that their organizations would not want to make those numbers public. Query both those responses, particularly for publicly-supported entities. I wonder how many of the museums represented on this list would be willing to account for and disclose their numbers? It might be an important step toward understanding how to build better and more profitable business models -- perhaps collaborative? -- involving images. While museums obviously must work under the copyright regimes of their various jurisdictions, images are a global business today. And obviously any monetary profit a museum can make while serving its mission is good. Thank you for this most interesting thread. Regards, Virginia --- On Wed, 5/6/09, Amalyah Keshet [akeshet at imj.org.il] akeshet at imj.org.il wrote: From: Amalyah Keshet [akeshet at imj.org.il] akes...@imj.org.il Subject: Re: [MCN-L] Image Sizes To: 'Museum Computer Network Listserv' mcn-l at mcn.edu Date: Wednesday, May 6, 2009, 3:40 AM Stanley: The decision in the Bridgeman v. Corel case is binding upon the two parties in that case, period.? It is neither legislation nor a Supreme Court decision, and therefore is not law.? It is not a change in the US copyright law, nor a new fair use exception.? It is a precedent that may be taken into consideration by a court deciding future cases. And it obviously has no bearing on the copyright laws of other countries. 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 Stanley Smith Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 10:21 PM To: mcn-l at mcn.edu Subject: Re: [MCN-L] Image Sizes If you think that your images are not out there, you are mistaken.? At the Getty we have taken pains to manage how our images migrate from our walls, but a quick Google image search of Irises and Van Gogh will yield hundreds of hits (the most hilarious of which is a line of dog-themed ceramic plates with the painting serving as background to visages of various breeds).? This is not too concerning, as the artwork itself is in the public domain, and Bridgeman v. Corel says that we can't claim photographic copyright-so all's fair in love and war. Speaking of Bridgeman, though, I recently tried to order a print of the same painting from Bridgeman's website. I am conducting research for a possible print-on-demand service at the Getty --(yes Will, if there is money to be made we should be the ones making it!) -- I wanted to see what other commercial ventures were doing with our images-mostly a quality survey.? I foolish used my Getty mailing address when placing the order (a 20 x 24 archival inkjet print on fine-art paper for about $70).? Two days later I got an email from Bridgeman stating: We regret to inform you that your order of 'Irises,1889' (supplier code BAL40070) cannot be processed due to the transparency being unsuitable for reproduction. The Bridgeman Art Library have advised that the quality of this particular print would be compromised by enlarging it beyond the image size and as a result we have been? forced to cancel and refund your order. The image will be removed from our site within the next couple of days to avoid any future? disappointment. Even Bridgeman was nervous about copyright issues!? Irises was removed from their website the next day.? There is really no possible way to prevent your images from getting out in the world.? Those CD's or transparencies that you have sent for scholar requests or publications over the years are still out there, and can fall into any number of hands.? Current imaging software is very good at rezing up small image image files into ones that can be used for print.? Current stitching software can
[MCN-L] Image Sizes
Amalyah's cautionary note is important and nearly correct. The Bridgeman v Corel decision is case law in the jurisdiction in which it was decided, namely the Southern District of New York. And there have been follow-on decisions that provide nuance. From Wikipdeia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_Ltd._v._Corel_Corporation Several federal courts have followed the ruling in Bridgeman. In Meshwerks v. Toyota[2], the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit favorably cited Bridgeman v. Corel, extending the reasoning in Bridgeman to cover 3D wireframe meshes of existing 3D objects. The appeals court wrote [T]he law is becoming increasingly clear: one possesses no copyright interest in reproductions ... when these reproductions do nothing more than accurately convey the underlying image. Specifically following Bridgeman, the appeals court wrote, In Bridgeman Art Library, the court examined whether color transparencies of public domain works of art were sufficiently original for copyright protection, ultimately holding that, as 'exact photographic copies of public domain works of art,' they were not. The appeals court ruling cited and followed the United States Supreme Court decision in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service (1991), explicitly rejecting difficulty of labor or expense as a consideration in copyrightability. This line of reasoning has been followed in other cases, such as Eastern America Trio Products v. Tang Electronic Corp (2000), where it was ruled that there is very broad scope for copyright in photographs, encompassing almost any photograph that reflects more than 'slavish copying'.[1] But this is still of very limited applicability. ken Kenneth Hamma +1 310 270 8008 khamma at me.com 368 Patel Place Palm Springs CA 92264 On May 6, 2009, at 3:40 AM, Amalyah Keshet [akeshet at imj.org.il] wrote: Stanley: The decision in the Bridgeman v. Corel case is binding upon the two parties in that case, period. It is neither legislation nor a Supreme Court decision, and therefore is not law. It is not a change in the US copyright law, nor a new fair use exception. It is a precedent that may be taken into consideration by a court deciding future cases. And it obviously has no bearing on the copyright laws of other countries. Amalyah Keshet Head of Image Resources Copyright Management The Israel Museum, Jerusalem -Original Message- From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu] On Behalf Of Stanley Smith Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 10:21 PM To: mcn-l at mcn.edu Subject: Re: [MCN-L] Image Sizes If you think that your images are not out there, you are mistaken. At the Getty we have taken pains to manage how our images migrate from our walls, but a quick Google image search of Irises and Van Gogh will yield hundreds of hits (the most hilarious of which is a line of dog-themed ceramic plates with the painting serving as background to visages of various breeds). This is not too concerning, as the artwork itself is in the public domain, and Bridgeman v. Corel says that we can't claim photographic copyright- so all's fair in love and war. Speaking of Bridgeman, though, I recently tried to order a print of the same painting from Bridgeman's website. I am conducting research for a possible print-on-demand service at the Getty --(yes Will, if there is money to be made we should be the ones making it!) -- I wanted to see what other commercial ventures were doing with our images-mostly a quality survey. I foolish used my Getty mailing address when placing the order (a 20 x 24 archival inkjet print on fine-art paper for about $70). Two days later I got an email from Bridgeman stating: We regret to inform you that your order of 'Irises,1889' (supplier code BAL40070) cannot be processed due to the transparency being unsuitable for reproduction. The Bridgeman Art Library have advised that the quality of this particular print would be compromised by enlarging it beyond the image size and as a result we have been forced to cancel and refund your order. The image will be removed from our site within the next couple of days to avoid any future disappointment. Even Bridgeman was nervous about copyright issues! Irises was removed from their website the next day. There is really no possible way to prevent your images from getting out in the world. Those CD's or transparencies that you have sent for scholar requests or publications over the years are still out there, and can fall into any number of hands. Current imaging software is very good at rezing up small image image files into ones that can be used for print. Current stitching software can easily reconstruct Zoomify panes into a very high resolution image. Even if you disable the ability to right-click an image for
[MCN-L] Re image 'theft'
The argument that I made was not intended to be based on a strict interpretation of copyright law but on public responsibility. So, with respect to my note, most of this is beside the point and a restatement of traditional argument. I should have been clearer in my assertion of the business decision. The notion of copyright is indeed a legal matter. Whether or not to assert copyright (not merely how much to charge) is, however, a business decision as there are numerous alternative courses for the creator. Among these are a variety of Creative Commons licensing schemes to a complete waiver of copyright. ken Kenneth Hamma +1 310 270 8008 khamma at me.com 368 Patel Place Palm Springs CA 92264 On May 6, 2009, at 3:40 AM, Amalyah Keshet [akeshet at imj.org.il] wrote: 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-bounces at 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
[MCN-L] image sizes
I wonder if anyone from the VA is here? They also offer free, full, high-resolution downloads for many of their works. They're incredibly useful for my own textile research, and it has become a beloved resource for my costuming community. But I'd be really curious to hear how their fee requests have picked up. Here at the Magnes, we keep wrangling back and forth about it. At the moment, the archival materials are at around 3000 pixels, while the objects are anywhere from 500 to 1000px. The 500px size (along with watermarks) was an early decision, but in the past few months, I've begun processing them up to 1000px. I may also leave some at 3000px, assuming there are details (text, especially) which require zooming in to study. It's inconsistent and I need to rethink a lot of this before we go online. A strange thing has happened this year, however, which is giving me pause. In past years (note that our materials, up until very recently, have never been available online), we have generated around $4000-6000/year in reproduction fees, most of that from one famous painting we have in our collection. In late 2008, we began publishing our materials on Flickr, in relatively high image sizes. We also started releasing information about our collections in ways that were easily findable by researchers. In March of this year, my boss commented that we had already generated somewhere in the order of $10,000 in fees - just in the first three months of 2009! We have had some complaints that our fees are too high (they are relatively high on paper, but we do negotiate), and we're retooling it as we learn better. But we've definitely noticed that the financial benefits are outweighing the risks thus far. ~P Perian Sully Collections Information Manager Web Programs Strategist The Magnes Berkeley, CA -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 8:26 AM To: Museum Computer Network Listserv Subject: Re: [MCN-L] image sizes Will, Moving beyond this is happening in lots of places already. Look, for example, at the image availability for prints in the British Museum: e.g., http://tinyurl.com/cu9the According to staff at the British Museum, this has proven very popular, way beyond the point that they could have any hope of enforcing the use limitations - if they had ever intended to do so for images of public domain works. ken Kenneth Hamma +1 310 270 8008 khamma at me.com 368 Patel Place Palm Springs CA 92264 On May 5, 2009, at 8:10 AM, Real, Will wrote: Matt, you are probably right, but 500 was what other people here (e.g. Publications staff) were comfortable with. A postcard-sized inkjet print we made from a 600 pixel image was surprisingly good, good enough to scare people. I hope someday we can move beyond this stalemate and provide more useful images to the public, with or without tools such as Zoomify. Will -Original Message- From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu] On Behalf Of Morgan, Matt Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 10:48 AM To: Museum Computer Network Listserv Subject: Re: [MCN-L] image sizes I'm aware of the discussion, but what's the limit before you hit commercially viable? Surely more than 500px. On 5/5/09 10:39 AM, Real, Will RealW at CarnegieMuseums.Org wrote: Hi Matt, The reason is simple: the museum does not want people to be able to use the large images to produce commercially viable prints. There was a thread on this list awhile back about that issue, and it seems our museum is not alone in taking this approach. We seem to think that there is some money to be made off the images and if anyone is going to make it, it should be us. With Zoomify or jpeg2000 we can offer up the full size image without loading it all at once. If someone really wants to they will still be able to download all of the high-res tiles and reassemble them, but it would be a lot more difficult. Another reason is that some images are published on the web with permission from the copyright owners. The permission form specifies the online image size. We'd have to maintain at least two different maximum file sizes online depending on copyright. Not impossible of course, just kind of a pain! Will -Original Message- From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu] On Behalf Of Morgan, Matt Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 9:57 AM To: Museum Computer Network Listserv Subject: Re: [MCN-L] image sizes Will, why wait for zoom before providing the large images? I think there are a lot of good arguments for very big images online now: 1) modern browsers handle resizing well 2) scrolling (when an image is too big for the window) is at least as easy for users as zooming, and shows them as much of the picture as will fit in the window (rather than arbitrarily limiting to a zoom pane) 3)
[MCN-L] image sizes
In late 2008, we began publishing our materials on Flickr, in relatively high image sizes. We also started releasing information about our collections in ways that were easily findable by researchers. In March of this year, my boss commented that we had already generated somewhere in the order of $10,000 in fees - just in the first three months of 2009! That's awesome. I agree with others here that the museum stranglehold on clinging to the desperate dreams of deep licensing revenue doesn't bear out in cost-analysis for *most* museums. Ken's also spot on to reference creative commons licensing and whoever else pointed out that Cory Doctorow's observation that he's selling more through cc licensing his work. There was a recent study which I can't find at the moment that people who most frequently shared music online were also the most frequent purchasers. It stands out as being a european observation, so I'm sure will instantly dismiss it here in America, but it was an interesting reference point. It seems that pretty consistently the real world is showing us the having a fairly open commons pays off financially (and philosophically). I'd rather spend time on creating stuff to help users rather than restrict them. -bw. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Bruce Wyman, Director of Technology Denver Art Museum / 100 W 14th Ave. Pkwy, Denver, CO 80204 office: 720.913.0159 / fax: 720.913.0002 bwyman at denverartmuseum.org
[MCN-L] RE: Re image 'theft'
Just to nitpick, a Creative Commons license is an assertion of copyright. That
is, it grants permission based on the assumption / fact / assertion that the
work is protected by copyright. For example, the attribution, non-commercial,
share alike license asserts that the creator/copyright holder must be
credited, it is limited to non-commercial uses based on the creator/copyright
holder's exclusive rights, and on the same basis the creator/copyright holder
can insist that the end user grant the same license on the new works he creates.
(Virginia: jump in here before I bury myself any deeper.)
.
There is, however, now a CC0 ('CC Zero') license that is may be used by
anyone wishing to permanently surrender the copyright and database rights they
may have in a work, thereby placing it as nearly as possible into the public
domain which speaks to what you're suggesting. I wonder, however, if choosing
this option would be a good business decision for a museum or even a matter of
public responsibility. I'm not saying it isn't -- I'm just wondering.
Amalyah
?: ??mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu] ??? Kenneth Hamma
[khamma at me.com]
??: ? ? 06 ??? 2009 19:10
: Museum Computer Network Listserv
??: Re: [MCN-L] Re image 'theft'
The argument that I made was not intended to be based on a strict
interpretation of copyright law but on public responsibility. So,
with respect to my note, most of this is beside the point and a
restatement of traditional argument.
I should have been clearer in my assertion of the business decision.
The notion of copyright is indeed a legal matter. Whether or not to
assert copyright (not merely how much to charge) is, however, a
business decision as there are numerous alternative courses for the
creator. Among these are a variety of Creative Commons licensing
schemes to a complete waiver of copyright.
ken
Kenneth Hamma
+1 310 270 8008
khamma at me.com
368 Patel Place
Palm Springs CA 92264
On May 6, 2009, at 3:40 AM, Amalyah Keshet [akeshet at imj.org.il] wrote:
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-bounces at 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
[MCN-L] RE: RE: image sizes
Scratch that - I didn't realize Bruce was quoting Perian. (Hebrew-enabled Outlook Web Access renders everything backwards -- right to left. Don't ask.) We've also seen an upturn in income. Flickr is one way to market images, we've used other ways so far -- whatever works. Ironically, we recently helped a desperate client who was unable to get, after enormous effort, what they needed from another institution's image download site. They were so grateful for our help that they offered to help us market to other publishers. Sometimes, just giving really good service is the best marketing approach. And that has nothing to do with whether or how much one charges. Amalyah ?: ??mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu] ??? Amalyah Keshet [akeshet at imj.org.il] ??: ? ? 06 ??? 2009 20:18 : Museum Computer Network Listserv ??: [MCN-L] ??RE: image sizes $10,000 in what kind of fees? Amalyah ?: ??mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu] ??? Bruce Wyman [bwyman at denverartmuseum.org] ??: ? ? 06 ??? 2009 20:00 : Museum Computer Network Listserv ??: Re: [MCN-L] image sizes In late 2008, we began publishing our materials on Flickr, in relatively high image sizes. We also started releasing information about our collections in ways that were easily findable by researchers. In March of this year, my boss commented that we had already generated somewhere in the order of $10,000 in fees - just in the first three months of 2009! That's awesome. I agree with others here that the museum stranglehold on clinging to the desperate dreams of deep licensing revenue doesn't bear out in cost-analysis for *most* museums. Ken's also spot on to reference creative commons licensing and whoever else pointed out that Cory Doctorow's observation that he's selling more through cc licensing his work. There was a recent study which I can't find at the moment that people who most frequently shared music online were also the most frequent purchasers. It stands out as being a european observation, so I'm sure will instantly dismiss it here in America, but it was an interesting reference point. It seems that pretty consistently the real world is showing us the having a fairly open commons pays off financially (and philosophically). I'd rather spend time on creating stuff to help users rather than restrict them. -bw. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Bruce Wyman, Director of Technology Denver Art Museum / 100 W 14th Ave. Pkwy, Denver, CO 80204 office: 720.913.0159 / fax: 720.913.0002 bwyman at denverartmuseum.org ___ 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/
[MCN-L] RE: image sizes
I think it's mostly use fees and production fees. Not so much in the way of rush fees, which is surprising (and a big source of revenue last year). There's a bit of a snowball effect happening where we've found that offering up images from one area or collection is causing publishers to ask about related materials. We do charge for that research time. On our website, we have switched our licensing from Copyright to a CC noncommercial-attribution-share alike license. We also clarify that researchers and educators wishing to use our images for their own personal use or in the classroom don't need to ask us permission to take the images, but it's nice to hear from them anyway and see how our assets are being used. This is how we learned that one of our Flickr projects, Jews in China, is actively being used by a classroom for study. Basically, we knew that we wanted to make sure researchers had full access, but we knew we didn't have the time (or, really, the inclination) to police our assets aggressively. Nor did we ever consider reproduction fees a significant source of revenue. Of the two, researcher use is far more important than retaining strict control over the materials. So we decided to just trust our audience to be responsible. So far, *knock on wood* the results are pretty positive. ~P Perian Sully Collections Information Manager Web Programs Strategist The Magnes Berkeley, CA -Original Message- From: mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mailto:mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu] On Behalf Of Amalyah Keshet [akes...@imj.org.il] Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 10:19 AM To: Museum Computer Network Listserv Subject: [MCN-L] ??RE: image sizes $10,000 in what kind of fees? Amalyah ?: ??mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu] ??? Bruce Wyman [bwyman at denverartmuseum.org] ??: ? ? 06 ??? 2009 20:00 : Museum Computer Network Listserv ??: Re: [MCN-L] image sizes In late 2008, we began publishing our materials on Flickr, in relatively high image sizes. We also started releasing information about our collections in ways that were easily findable by researchers. In March of this year, my boss commented that we had already generated somewhere in the order of $10,000 in fees - just in the first three months of 2009! That's awesome. I agree with others here that the museum stranglehold on clinging to the desperate dreams of deep licensing revenue doesn't bear out in cost-analysis for *most* museums. Ken's also spot on to reference creative commons licensing and whoever else pointed out that Cory Doctorow's observation that he's selling more through cc licensing his work. There was a recent study which I can't find at the moment that people who most frequently shared music online were also the most frequent purchasers. It stands out as being a european observation, so I'm sure will instantly dismiss it here in America, but it was an interesting reference point. It seems that pretty consistently the real world is showing us the having a fairly open commons pays off financially (and philosophically). I'd rather spend time on creating stuff to help users rather than restrict them. -bw. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Bruce Wyman, Director of Technology Denver Art Museum / 100 W 14th Ave. Pkwy, Denver, CO 80204 office: 720.913.0159 / fax: 720.913.0002 bwyman at denverartmuseum.org ___ 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/
[MCN-L] Digital Preservation and Nuclear Holocaust: An Animation
Oh, the things that pop up on Twitter (I think Richard Urban was the first to tweet this...) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbBa6Oam7-w A cute animation about the (very) basics of digital preservation. Enjoy! Perian Sully Collections Information Manager Web Programs Strategist The Magnes 2911 Russell St. Berkeley, CA 94705 Work: 510-549-6950 x 357 Fax: 510-849-3673 http://www.magnes.org http://www.musematic.org http://www.mediaandtechnology.org
[MCN-L] RE: RE: Re image 'theft'
I kind of like thinking of sharing as marketing by another name. (A less
traditionalone?) Both are an investment in developing an income-producing
resource.
And there are museums with a real need to develop the revenue-producing
capabilities of their image (and other content) resources, in order to bring in
more income, so that they can remain viable and fulfill their missions.
Any and all ideas or models for how to do this should be welcome.
Amalyah
?: ??mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu] ??? Virginia
Rutledge [virginiarutledge at yahoo.com]
??: ? ? 06 ??? 2009 21:22
: Museum Computer Network Listserv
??: Re: [MCN-L] ??RE: Re image 'theft'
Of course it's great to see CC put into the mix of this discussion!
CC-NC licenses are one way to reserve the museum's right to commercial
exploitation, where appropriate. But first comes the policy question, which for
nonprofits really is the same as the business model question, isn't it? What
rights are worth asserting, and on what grounds?
CC Zero is a legal tool that enables waiver of rights (and thus is not a
license per se). Some museums may find it appropriate to give up rights they
don't want to assert ( realize some may find that controversial, and solicit
feedback) and/or to proactively put out to the public certain images in which
others may inappropriately assert rights. Such as, I would argue, any
straight image of a work in the public domain to which image anyone claims
copyright.
Pulling in a comment from another thread, there are an increasing number of
studies that suggest that some sharing builds sales. But this may be genre and
content-specific, and there's just not a lot of data yet that an empiricist
could love. Sharing experiences among this list is thus a very valuable thing.
--- On Wed, 5/6/09, Amalyah Keshet [akeshet at imj.org.il] akeshet at
imj.org.il wrote:
From: Amalyah Keshet [akeshet at imj.org.il] akes...@imj.org.il
Subject: [MCN-L] ??RE: Re image 'theft'
To: Museum Computer Network Listserv mcn-l at mcn.edu
Date: Wednesday, May 6, 2009, 10:13 AM
Just to nitpick, a Creative Commons license is an assertion of copyright. That
is, it grants permission based on the assumption / fact / assertion that the
work is protected by copyright. For example, the attribution, non-commercial,
share alike license asserts that the creator/copyright holder must be
credited, it is limited to non-commercial uses based on the creator/copyright
holder's exclusive rights, and on the same basis the creator/copyright holder
can insist that the end user grant the same license on the new works he creates.
(Virginia: jump in here before I bury myself any deeper.)
.
There is, however, now a CC0 ('CC Zero') license that is may be used by
anyone wishing to permanently surrender the copyright and database rights they
may have in a work, thereby placing it as nearly as possible into the public
domain which speaks to what you're suggesting. I wonder, however, if choosing
this option would be a good business decision for a museum or even a matter of
public responsibility. I'm not saying it isn't -- I'm just wondering.
Amalyah
?: ??mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu [mcn-l-bounces at mcn.edu] ??? Kenneth Hamma
[khamma at me.com]
??: ? ? 06 ??? 2009 19:10
: Museum Computer Network Listserv
??: Re: [MCN-L] Re image 'theft'
The argument that I made was not intended to be based on a strict
interpretation of copyright law but on public responsibility. So,
with respect to my note, most of this is beside the point and a
restatement of traditional argument.
I should have been clearer in my assertion of the business decision.
The notion of copyright is indeed a legal matter. Whether or not to
assert copyright (not merely how much to charge) is, however, a
business decision as there are numerous alternative courses for the
creator. Among these are a variety of Creative Commons licensing
schemes to a complete waiver of copyright.
ken
Kenneth Hamma
+1 310 270 8008
khamma at me.com
368 Patel Place
Palm Springs CA 92264
On May 6, 2009, at 3:40 AM, Amalyah Keshet [akeshet at imj.org.il] wrote:
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
[MCN-L] RE: RE: Re image 'theft'
Further to the discussion of image licensing and CC, the flip side of it is the Plus Coalition, which has presented at MCN I think several times. I imagine most of you have seen this recent announcement from PLUS: http://www2.adbase.com/view/?c=30937677i=3280 I'd be interested in the range of views about this initiative from the museum and image user communities. Regards, Eve Sinaiko Director of Publications College Art Association
