2009/3/22 Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt@gmail.com>:

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.

I doubt that anyone on Commons would want to prevent inclusion of

available metadata in the description.

The only reasons why this is not done I can see are:

* lazyness

This is something that we cannot control nor regulate against, unfortunately :-)

* a museum might not hold the copyright to a picture, but it could

argue to hold copyright to the description, especially if it's

substantive. People might hesitate to copy that unless it is clearly

allowed.

Yes, the prose description is the Gallery's copyright, we can't copy that. But I'm referring to the metadata information (which Galleries insist is required for full/accurate attribution). 

For example:

Source

http://artsearch.nga.gov.au/Detail.cfm?IRN=102513

Max DUPAIN
Australia 1911 - 1992
Sunbaker 1937
gelatin silver photograph
image 38.6 x 43.4 cm
sheet 52.8 x 55.0 cm
National Gallery of Australia, Canberra.
Accn No: NGA 76.54

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?

An image apparently made in 1975 is not public domain, unless the

author declares it to be.

Can't tell about the other one.

The original painting is certainly NOT public domain - but what about the copyright status of a photograph that you or I might take of that painting? That is the question. 

Cheers,

Magnus

_______________________________________________

Commons-l mailing list

Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

email: liamwyatt@gmail.com

skype: wittylama

wikipedia: [[user:witty lama]]