Comments on: Walters Museum uploads 19,000 photos to Wikimedia Commons

By: 17,900 new images from the Walters Art Museum « News from JURN.org

17,900 new images from the Walters Art Museum « News from JURN.org — Fri, 18 May 2012 22:03:43 +0000

[...] Waters Art Museum has added 17,900 new images to the Wikimedia Commons. Google’s indexed them all, and so they can now be searched via [...]

By: Ryan Kaldari

Ryan Kaldari — Fri, 18 May 2012 18:14:52 +0000

@AndreasP: No, PD-Art|PD-old-100 is not the correct license for these images. First of all, PD-Art|PD-old-100 is not a license, it is an explanation that the images are not copyrightable in several countries. For all the countries that do recognize sweat of the brow (Spain, Taiwan, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, possibly the UK, etc.) a license is required. Otherwise, the images would be fully copyrighted in those countries. Regarding the descriptions: the threshold of originality also varies considerably by country. In most countries, the majority of Walters descriptions would be covered by copyright. In the both of these cases, the Walters is going out of their way to relinquish their copyrights in those countries, even though Commons doesn't require it. For this, they are accused of copyfraud. I guess no good dead goes unpunished on Commons.

By: AndreasP

AndreasP — Wed, 16 May 2012 14:24:06 +0000

@Ryan: The copyfraud GFDL license still is part of the licensing section, and it is bold and clearly visible. The correct license would be PD-Art|PD-old-100, and it is nowhere in the description. It cannot be detected automatically, and the only way to find out that this may be the correct license is to read the smalles possible print at a place that you don’t expect it. Which is what fraudsters do in any area, by the way.

Please make sure that the Walters Museum license template has a parameter to switch to the correct license. This should happen _before_ uploading thousands of images, by the way.

The gift from the Walters Museum indeed is nice, but some gifts are poisoned. Claiming copyright on sheer facts (and what else are museum descriptions supposed to be) is such a poisonous ingredient. Museums may try to do so, but Wikimedia shouldn’t actively encourage them.

By: Ryan Kaldari

Ryan Kaldari — Tue, 15 May 2012 16:58:48 +0000

@AndreasP: The license template doesn’t say anything about metadata. Regarding the descriptions, they are all detailed (some several paragraphs long), and thus eligible for copyright protection. Plus the template explicitly states “Copyright restrictions only apply to descriptions which cross the threshold of originality.” Regarding the photographs, most are of 3D object (as already explained). For the rest, the template explicitly says “In the United States and many other countries, faithful photographic reproductions of original two-dimensional works of art do not qualify for copyright protection and are considered public domain.”

By: Zbiory Walters Art Museum na Wikipedii - historiaimedia.org

Zbiory Walters Art Museum na Wikipedii - historiaimedia.org — Sun, 13 May 2012 00:46:30 +0000

[...] Komentarze pod informacją o przekazaniu zasobów sygnalizują pewien problem z licencjonowaniem materiałów z Walters Art Museum. Okazuje się bowiem, że fotografie i skany przedstawiające w standardowy sposób wizerunki obiektów będących w domenie publicznej objęte są licencją Creative Commons. Taka praktyka ma być złamaniem zasady prawnej ustanowionej wyrokiem amerykańskiego sądu w sprawie Bridgeman Art Library przeciw Corel Corporation z 1999 roku. Wyrok mówił o tym, że fotograficzna reprodukcja obiektu, co do którego wygasły autorskie prawa majątkowe nie może być utworem objętym tym prawem, ponieważ kopia taka pozbawiona jest jakichkolwiek oznak twórczej oryginalności. Przy takiej interpretacji oznaczanie licencji w zbiorach Walters Art Museum ma nie być poprawne. [...]

By: Gary G.

Gary G. — Thu, 10 May 2012 03:53:08 +0000

How can you be sure the license template is copy fraud. What you say sounds good, but what else support your theory.

By: AndreasP

AndreasP — Wed, 09 May 2012 19:04:40 +0000

The license template is pure copyfraud. The metadata are mostly ineligible for copyright (for some more detailed descriptions, some copyright might apply, though). But more important: The photographs of paintings and drawings of Public Domain images are in the Public Domain according to “Bridgeman v. Corel”.

The license tag should be changed.

By: sil

sil — Tue, 08 May 2012 19:34:15 +0000

mostly objects???!?!

very nice objects !!!!

By: Katie Filbert

Katie Filbert — Tue, 08 May 2012 17:37:07 +0000

I think it’s the metadata that is CC and the images themselves are PD-old.

By: Ryan Kaldari

Ryan Kaldari — Tue, 08 May 2012 17:27:01 +0000

And just to be clear, all the images do include a PD tag for the artwork.