Hi
With some fanfare the LSE library have added some images from their
collection to flickr commons. As per the rules of flickr commons these are
listed as "no copyright restrictions". If you click on the LSE's
interpretation of "no copyright restrictions" they link to a very non-free,
personal, non-commercial licence.
Flickr's understanding of no copyright restrictions:
http://www.flickr.com/commons/usage/
BY ASSERTING "NO KNOWN COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS," PARTICIPATING INSTITUTIONS
ARE SHARING THE BENEFIT OF THEIR RESEARCH WITHOUT PROVIDING AN EXPRESSED OR
IMPLIED WARRANTY TO OTHERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO USE OR REPRODUCE THE
PHOTOGRAPH. IF YOU MAKE USE OF A PHOTO FROM THE COMMONS, YOU ARE REMINDED TO
CONDUCT AN INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS OF APPLICABLE LAW BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH A
PARTICULAR NEW USE.
The LSE Library's understanding of no copyright restrictions:
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/library/archive/flickr_rights_statement.aspx
"The images published on our Flickr Commons photostream are all marked as
having ‘no known copyright restrictions’ attached to them. This means that
we are unaware of any current copyright restrictions for displaying this
selection of photographs from our collection within the Flickr website,
either because LSE owns the copyright, or the term of copyright has expired,
or because no evidence has been found that copyright restrictions apply.
The images on our photostream are meant to be used for personal, educational
or research purposes. To obtain high quality digital copies, or to find out
more about copyright terms for the reproduction of specific works in our
collection, please contact the Library's Archives and Rare Books Division.
Please note that it is our policy to charge licensing fees for commercial
use. "
I've complained here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lselibrary/3274389894/
The LSE replied:
Just to clarify on the copyright point. Copyright in ‘No known copyright
restrictions’ refers to the rights of the photographer. In the case of all
the images we have put on Flickr as far as we have been able to establish
copyright has either expired or belongs to LSE. Licensing is different, this
applies to permission to reproduce images. We have placed these images under
a ‘non-commercial licence’ which means that they can be used freely for
personal and academic use. Charges only apply if someone wanted to use the
images for commercial publications when we would have to supply higher
resolution images. This is standard practice for commercial publications.
Flickr Commons has a code of practice dictating what can be displayed on the
site and LSE adheres to this in all respects.
Can they really claim copyright and licensing are different like this?
I know library thing had people upload images from this collection believing
"no copyright restrictions" meant PD. I expect some will end up on Commons
too.
Caroline