On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Craig Franklin <cr...@halo-17.net> wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> Unfortunately the physical objects that the collection is based upon (the 
> glass plate negatives) are in a locked cupboard somewhere in the QM 
> warehouse, so the possibility of getting our hands on them and making our own 
> copies are fairly remote.
> I've deliberately worded the info in the infobox to be slightly ambiguous - 
> QM *claim* copyright on the digitisation (much the same as the NPG in the 
> UK), but there has not been a legal case here in Australia to my knowledge or 
> the knowledge of QM's copyright people to confirm whether the "sweat of the 
> brow" doctrine would hold up in an Australian court.  We only say that QM 
> "assert" copyright over the digitisation, not that we recognise that 
> particular claim.  And because the digitisation part is then released under a 
> free, acceptable licence, the whole shebang is fine to go on Commons.

the template is here: [[commons:Template:QM_Infobox]]
watchlist it! ;-)

> The images are tagged PD because they are unquestionably PD in the United 
> States, which is what really matters in this case, but it's worth mentioning 
> that there is a possible bit of CC-BY-SA-3.0 in there just so that nobody in 
> Australia or the UK gets caught out.

A similar example of a claim like this is:


and the derivative


Legally we are better off having a CC image than a PD image - the
definition of the latter can change.

For cases like this, it would be nice to have a
CC-0-digitised-attribution license which requires attribution of the
digitiser, but does not assert copyright over it.

nice work Craig!

John Vandenberg

Wikimediaau-l mailing list

Reply via email to