This is an interesting debate. The fact that these tags are being placed on 1700 year old paintings undermines the value of copyright claims that are legally enforceable. We must ensure that we are respecting the law in a clear way even if very questionable claims are being made. Paintings are copyright in the UK for 70 years after authors death. Wikimedia has been clear that it does not believe that you can "re-image" to get a copyright which some UK GLAMs do in a very ordered way. They obviously believe that this may create some new rights. Logic tells me this cannot be true as it makes the 70 year rule a mockery.
If we go to court then we need to go at someone elses invitation. Our job at present I think is to influence public opinion so that when the law is changed then it moves in our direction. We can do this by not breaking the 70 year rule (ever) and by honouring attribution (always) and by challenging these claims. This is our cultural heritage and someone with a camera cannot claim they made it.
rant over
Roger
On 6 July 2011 05:00, geni
<geniice@gmail.com> wrote:
Hmm their tagging system also has issues. Rather than allowing you to
tag the paintings of your choice (the ones you actually know something
about). You have to tag paintings that are randomly presented to you.
--
Roger Bamkin
01332 702993
(aka @Victuallers)