Hi Tony, Ruth

Ruth's point about 'no known copyright' and the reference to Seb Chan's
experiences is interesting, but tangential to Tony's enquiry.

Tony's original question was clearly about an offline situation: "what
wording can we use for a copyright disclaimer?" I think it's reasonably safe
to assume - since this is offline, with a collection of known provenance -
that there's little legal risk of breaching or damaging a copyright holder's
rights by using a disclaimer. I'm not aware of best practice examples of
wording - pehaps others can advise.

Regarding the online world, I think we need access to some serious legal
research/knowledge defining how an online publisher would establish beyond
reasonable doubt that there is 'no known rights holder.'

I wonder if Naomi can advise about the legal safety of the phrase
'no known copyright' in an online environment, under English law?

I know from experience that it's no use using worthy-sounding phrases to
protect against copyright litigants. They will find an angle to get you if
they can...

All the best

Jon Pratty
Arts Journalist
Digital publishing consultant

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ruth Harper" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 7:14 PM
Subject: Re: Image Copyright


Hi Tony

Just to reiterate what James said. The Flickr 'no known copyright'
disclaimer has arisen from exactly this need to be able to share what a
museum owns without breaching potential copyright restrictions, or
asserting a claim on the materials yourself.

Seb Chan's blog (Powerhouse, Sydney) talks explicitly about their
experience with this particular type of copyright
http://tinyurl.com/5a43g4

"4. Aren't you worried about releasing these images as de facto 'public
domain'? Don't you want attribution and credit for collecting,
preserving and making these available?

We've noticed that our images are now spreading to the Wikimedia
Commons, and are also being used in blog posts and various websites.
And, although we haven't specifically encouraged remixing - primarily
because of the nature of the content of most of the images - there have
been some Flickr users who have notified us of the intent to create
screenprints and other derivatives of some images.

Now, because these images have been identified as 'no known copyright'
there is no legal need to attribute the source of these images but every
single re-use or embed of our images to date has featured an
attribution. This is another testament to the nature of the Flickr
community. Now that some of these images are also in the Wikimedia
Commons it will be interesting to see whether the same courtesy
attribution occurs. "

"6. What is the big deal about 'no known Copyright'?

I guess the answer is both philosophical and practical. Philosophically
it makes sense for publicly-owned heritage images to be made available
to the public in a digital form to reuse and repurpose except where
there are cultural sensitivities involved. This may not apply to
institutions that aren't publicly funded of course.

On a practical level it makes sense because asserting Copyright (or even
Creative Commons) over something that clearly wasn't made by you is full
of legal complexities. Not only that, it complicates matters for
learners of all ages who legitimately want to see and use these images -
if only they knew they existed."

There also exists within the policy a 'take down' clause, if the
copyright of any one object is disputed (- it has happened at least once
that the copyright has been verified to be expired, and the materials
have gone back online!)

If it works on a high-profile international website to this degree, it
should work for your purposes, surely?


Hope that helps

All the best

Ruth Harper
Network and Marketing Coordinator, Culture24
www.culture24.org.uk
Direct Line: 01273 623269


-----Original Message-----
From: Museums Computer Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Tony Crockford
Sent: 10 September 2008 16:45
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Image Copyright

On 10 Sep 2008, at 16:27, Naomi Korn wrote:

> Dear Tony
>
> It sounds like you need a disclaimer as suggested, as well as a take
> down notice. This should very much be linked to some kind of risk
> assessment (i.e. there are certain types of content, like commercial
> films, high "value" art etc etc, which in my opinion, really are too
> high a risk to put online).

I'd agree, however this exhibition, whilst browser based, is running on
a closed intranet.

(the museum staff can add, update and change the content from their own
office based PC's, but exhibition visitors only have read only access
from kiosk browsers)

so, the general public visitor can see the images, read the
interpretations, watch the movies and take the virtual tours, but short
of taking photo's of the kiosk screen they can't take away any imagery.

but we do want to be sure that any breach of copyright (should it exist,
despite attempts made to identify and attribute ownership) is properly
dealt with on request.

I'll investigate the resource you linked to shortly.

**************************************************
For mcg information and to manage your subscription to the list, visit
the website at http://www.museumscomputergroup.org.uk
**************************************************

**************************************************
For mcg information and to manage your subscription to the list, visit the
website at http://www.museumscomputergroup.org.uk
**************************************************

**************************************************
For mcg information and to manage your subscription to the list, visit the website at http://www.museumscomputergroup.org.uk
**************************************************