On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually this isn't a copyright discussion.
http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=581
To ensure that publication of material from its
Actually the Bundesarchiv did something along those lines with 100,000
images last December. They owned unambiguous copyright over the collection
so they relicensed medium resolution versions under CC-by-sa and uploaded
those to Commons while they retained full copyright over the high resolution
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote:
This is absolutely standard, at least in Australia. For example, see the
snip
Thanks for that informative reply, that was really helpful. I wish I'd
gone to GLAM-WIKI, I probably could have gotten work to pay for it
too...
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 3:30 AM, Durova nadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote:
4. Persuade the staff to change policy.
This is the approach I've been working on, one institution at a time. A
group of volunteers have been pooling information and resources toward that
end. We've had some successes
Most of these institutions have a mission to inform the public. Openness
helps fulfill that mission. In the Bundesarchiv's case, donation of 100,000
images significantly increased their sales of images. That may seem
counterintuitive but if an organization is smart about it everyone
benefits.
Actually this isn't a copyright discussion.
http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=581
To ensure that publication of material from its collections receives due
acknowledgment and promotion, the Library requires that permission to
publish is obtained prior to publication.
All requests for
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 4:48 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Question for the copyright experts. See this image:
http://images.slsa.sa.gov.au/mpcimg/01000/B838.htm
It's over 100 years old, and there is no clear copyright statement
(ie, the photographer isn't listed). Yet they say
It looks like the rule in Australia is currently life of the creator +70 for
public domain but actually thats very new (2005) and before that it was only
50 years after death so anything where the creator died after 1958/9 should
be public domain. (
Steve, that image is now PD in Australia. In Australia, the copyright of
photographs taken prior to 1 January 1955 has expired and they are now in
the public domain. The template for using PD Australian images on Wikipedia
is here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-Australia and Commons -
Is that date taken or date published? This is why provenance of
photographs (both photographer and publication details, and dates) is
important. You should also make clear *who* is saying that this
photograph was taken in 1903. Sometimes publication and photographed
dates are mixed up. Also, the
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote:
Is that date taken or date published? This is why provenance of
photographs (both photographer and publication details, and dates) is
important. You should also make clear *who* is saying that this
photograph was
Question for the copyright experts. See this image:
http://images.slsa.sa.gov.au/mpcimg/01000/B838.htm
It's over 100 years old, and there is no clear copyright statement
(ie, the photographer isn't listed). Yet they say Any other use
requires permission from the State Library of South Australia.
12 matches
Mail list logo
