Hoi,
Archives and museums are the care takers of the historic material that we
rely on. Digitised material is what is of use to us. As the original
material has often folds, tears, stains and or discoloration itis often
necessary to digitally restore the digital material. It is vitally important
to provide documentation to what has been done in such a restoration. It
starts with referring to the origin of the digitised material. This provides
a similar qualitative statement as a citation does for text because it
allows people to go back to the original material and ascertain the validity
of the material and the restoration.
Archives and museums provide in this a vital service. The benefit of us
referring to these institutions is that we acknowledge their social
relevance. By making this clear to the public, we provide a powerful and
visible argument why these organisations deserve our support.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/3/22 Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt(a)gmail.com>
Dear Commons-folk,
In my capacity as Vice President of Wikimedia Australia on Thursday I spent
several hours with the Rights and Permissions Officer of the National Galley
of Australia. As you might assume from a meeting that went for 2.5 hours he
was well disposed towards Wikipedia and to Commons.
However, there were some concerns raised that I thought it a good idea to
talk through with you. 1) Attribution statements and 2) fair-use vs.
{{self}}. I also had meetings with several other Australian national museums
and galleries over the last couple of days each equally interested in us but
with similar concerns.
1) Attribution statements.
Let me start by saying that I am aware that there is no legal requirement
that an image in the Public Domain have an attribution. However, in the
context of artworks, I can see no reason why we would not provide
attribution - to do so is in the furtherance of our mission after all.
Our custom of attribution is to list the name of the author and a link back
to where the image was found. Galleries and Museums have a much more
extensive attribution culture and as I discovered, if we would like to
develop and maintain good relations with galleries we nee to take up their
attribution standards. Take for example this picture:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sunbaker_maxdupain_nga76.54.jpg
This is a PD image in the National Gallery collection that they are very
happy for us to have. Furthermore, this is one of the nation's most iconic
photographs and the Galley makes a lot of money selling posters of this
picture. So, their happiness for us to have a copy shows their understanding
of Public Domain. Such understanding cannot necessarily be assumed when
dealing with galleries/museums/libraries. See, for example:
http://ragesossscholar.blogspot.com/2009/01/libraries-and-copyfraud.html
The attribution information alongside the "Sunbaker" photo is copied
directly from the gallery's website, which is also linked from the image.
Furthermore, the filename is the same as the Gallery's record number.
Attention to this detail is something that they greatly
appreciate. Furthermore, displaying such information with the object is
often a condition of its donation to the institution. In short, all the
information that we would often see as superfluous - such as, "Type C
photograph, gift of the John Doe foundation, 1975" - they see as
absolutely essential to the attribution. We have no reason not to follow
their practice as it makes no difference to us. Our insistence that "we
don't have to, it's PD" only makes us look silly and them less likely to
want to work with us. Meeting their requirements would be a good thing to
do.
So, I ask that when we copy images from galleries/museums/libraries, or
even when we take photos of the originals ourselves, we include the
comprehensive attribution that the gallery/museum itself includes. I would
suggest that this should be the Commons policy when dealing with art.
2) Fair-use vs. {{self}}.
Later in the meeting I was directed to look at two images:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Warlugulong.jpg and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Margaret_olley_still_life_1975.JPG
Both of these paintings are in the Australian National Gallery collection,
both are self-made photographs taken by a visitor to the gallery, both are
uploaded to en:Wikipedia and the subject matter of both are in copyright.
However, one is listed as a fair-use claim whilst the other is listed as
Public Domain by virtue of the photographer releasing the photo under that
license. The question is, which copyright licence is correct? They are both
in the same circumstances. At the time I did not look closely enough to see
that the images were taken by wikipedians (as opposed to having been
supplied by the gallery) and so I wrongly listed the File:Warlugulong.jpgfor speedy
deletion on the basis of an incorrect "self-PD" claim. As it
turned out, even though my speedy deletion request was incorrect, showing
that an image can in fact be listed for review by administrators was
very encouraging to them. I also explained the basis of our fair-use system
on the English wikipedia - and therefore the legal justification for our use
of the Margaret Olley image - and this was also accepted and understood.
However, the original question remains, if I go into a gallery and take a
photo of an in-copyright painting (and only the painting - I'm not talking
about things that appear in the background here) should it be uploaded as
fair use or as self-made? One of the above two examples is incorrect and we
need to change it. I'm sure we have a policy about this kind of thing around
somewhere but this policy is clearly not consistently applied enough for us
to look professional when talking to galleries.
So, I ask that in the same way as we have a well defined and well
publicised system for using fair-use on en:WP but not on commons (or de:WP
for example) we should also make a well defined, consistent and well
publicised system for dealing with self-made photographs of in-copyright
artwork.
Your thoughts on these matters would be appreciated.
Sincerely,
-Liam Wyatt
email: liamwyatt(a)gmail.com
skype: wittylama
wikipedia: [[user:witty lama]]
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l