On 11/5/09 12:36 AM, David Gerard wrote:
2009/11/4 Caroline
Ford<caroline.ford.work(a)googlemail.com>om>:
Can they really claim copyright and licensing are
different like this?
It strikes me as complete bollocks.
Mind you, when an institution makes bollocks claims like this, the
likely best course of action would be for a GLAM diplomacy specialist
to have a quiet word with them and see what can be done ... but if
images end up on Commons and are OK from a copyright perspective per
our rules, then they'll likely stick. I'm not sure any GLAM wants to
be the next NPG.
Their claims are also very vague; the only that they explicitly claim is
that if you want to *get* a high-resolution version to use commercially
they will happily take your money in exchange.
They don't actually _say_ that they can charge you for using the
available online files commercially, and seem to be carefully
sidestepping it. :)
-- brion