To anyone who hasn't tumed out from this thread, you might find this
interesting - http://pro.europeana.eu/pro-blog/-/blogs/copyright-public-consultation%3A-europeana-responds-have-you
---
James Morley
www.jamesmorley.net / @jamesinealing
www.whatsthatpicture.com / @PhotosOfThePast
www.apennypermile.com / @APennyPerMile
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 3:22 PM, James Morley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Thanks Sarah, as you say, I think the reality is that the only possible way
> for any sort of progress is nagging from all parties.
>
> Two specific comments though:
>
> - you say even those who should know are "confused about embedded
> software". Absolutely! I have been looking at a few projects where I simply
> wanted to do the right thing and employ best practice, but boy was it hard
> to find anything to help me quickly and easily work out what I needed to do,
> and how to do it.
>
> - "museums are wary of placing images on social media" do you mean the
> likes of Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Instagram? I simply cannot fathom why
> anyone would hesitate to share a screen-res image on their own accounts on
> any of those, any more than I can understand any museum preventing visitors
> taking photographs and sharing them. Surely we've moved on from that?
>
> And on a lighter note - especially since it's Friday once again ... I know
> you and several others here have seen this, but I thought I'd share it here
> too.
>
> http://culturepics.org is a hack I threw together last weekend which was
> initially intended to be a placehold.it / placekitten.com type service, but
> based on open access cultural heritage collections (initially about 40,000
> images from Flickr Commons, and I'm just looking to integrate many more
> api-accessible records from e.g. Eurapeana). It's grown provide a simple to
> use discovery tool, and I've had a few other interesting ideas to extend it.
> You'll be pleased to hear that the plan (not yet implemented - see above
> about what and how!) is even if they have a CC0/PD license to embed
> attribution and basic information into the metadata of the derivative images
> it serves up, which in the case of Flickr images is actually sticking back
> in what they stripped out (or from what I've seen from many of the source
> images, adding in what the original owner never had there in the first
> place!).
>
> James
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> James Morley
> www.jamesmorley.net / @jamesinealing
> www.whatsthatpicture.com / @PhotosOfThePast
> www.apennypermile.com / @APennyPerMile
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Sarah Saunders <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>>
>> James
>>
>> I completely agree with what you;re saying and that's why the IPTC Photo
>> Metadata Group is emphasising the role of technology and software companies
>> in trying to solve the attribution problem. The issue though, is that most
>> don't want to change anything unless and until their users ask for it.
>>
>> At IPTC our MD tried to get hold of the social media organisations when we
>> did our survey of metadata retention (or put otherwise, stripping). We
>> couldn't get a single response from any of the companies, so the only way
>> forward is to make as much noise as possible outside, and publish the
>> findings so that others can understand the issues and start to ask for
>> metadata to be taken seriously.
>>
>> Here's the campaign site (set up by IPTC Photo Metadata Working group)
>>
>> http://www.embeddedmetadata.org/
>>
>> and the results of our social media metadata survey
>>
>> http://www.embeddedmetadata.org/social-media-test-results.php
>>
>> The cultural sector has a long way to go - even hardened picture library
>> software companies (with a few honorable exceptions) are confused about
>> embedded software. Many people working in heritage organisations are in hoc
>> to their tech departments who tell them 'it can't be done' or 'it's not a
>> priority'. Some museums are wary of placing images on social media, and so
>> they should be. Perhaps the social media companies (I've said this before!)
>> will listen to some very large national institutions.
>>
>> It's great that we are talking about it!
>>
>> Sarah
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 22 Jan 2014, at 17:30, James Morley wrote:
>>
>> > Interesting piece. The polarised comments frustrate me though and don't
>> > really serve to take the argument anywhere. Start saying 'thou shalt
>> > not'
>> > to a kid won't get you anywhere, just as citing details of outdated
>> > copyright law aren't exactly going to encourage someone on social media
>> > to
>> > start thinking about the precise way in which they should use an image.
>> >
>> > As I said there, it strikes me that the basic problem lies in both the
>> > nature of the medium and the technology that supports it. Combine that
>> > with
>> > a confused bunch of 'users' with no clear guidance on what is best
>> > practice
>> > or even just decent, let alone the law, and it's a recipe for the chaos
>> > that ensues. And the sad thing is that in almost all cases no-one sets
>> > out
>> > to intentionally upset anyone, and if they had a helping hand they'd be
>> > more than happy to do the correct thing (as this case shows with the
>> > fact
>> > that three people took the trouble to provide attribution, even though
>> > they
>> > got it wrong!).
>> >
>> > Wonderfully naive, but isn't technology part of the answer? When you
>> > publish an image, embed copyright information. When it is saved,
>> > modified,
>> > shared ensure that that information persists (one of the almost
>> > ubiquitous
>> > failings of current social media platforms, which strip out metadata, as
>> > we've discussed before). Then wherever it is published make sure that
>> > that
>> > information is readily accessible. For example on Flickr you can see a
>> > page
>> > of EXIF data extracted from the uploaded image (even though they strip
>> > it
>> > from derivatives!) and why not make a right-click option available in
>> > every
>> > modern web browser to view basic exif/iptc data on any image? Then that
>> > crucial trail would not be lost at every step.
>> >
>> > ---
>> > James Morley
>> > www.jamesmorley.net / @jamesinealing
>> > www.whatsthatpicture.com / @PhotosOfThePast
>> > www.apennypermile.com / @APennyPerMile
>> > <http://www.apennypermile.com>
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Angela Murphy
>> > <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>> >
>> >> A salutary tale about image attribution (with thanks to David Riecks
>> >> and
>> >> David Sanger) - and a reminder that links should be to the original
>> >> copyright holder where possible
>> >> http://www.davidsanger.com/blog/the-piano-player-of-kiev
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Angela Murphy
>> >> Consultant
>> >> Image Management and Rights Clearance
>> >>
>> >> The Image Business
>> >> 21 Leamington Road Villas
>> >> Notting Hill
>> >> London W11 1HS
>> >> Tel: +44-(0)20-77274920
>> >> Mob: +44-(0)7973-820020
>> >>
>> >> email: [log in to unmask]
>> >> http://about.me/angelamurphy
>> >>
>> >> On 17 Jan 2014, at 09:46, James Morley wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Hi, a 'quick' Friday question ...
>> >>>
>> >>> If you are planning to use images under a license that requires
>> >>> attribution, but the mechanism for attribution is not specified, which
>> >>> of the following would people deem acceptable?
>> >>>
>> >>> - display an image on a web page and having a full citation and link
>> >>> (ok, I think that's an obvious yes)
>> >>> - display an image on a website with attribution in a hidden
>> >>> "title=xyz" attribute
>> >>> - give generic credits for images at the end of a page, or even on a
>> >>> separate page
>> >>> - overlay an image with a text 'watermark' attribution (but does that
>> >>> create a derivative, which gets even more confusing!)
>> >>> - embed all attribution details in image metadata
>> >>>
>> >>> One of the reasons for asking is that most of the licenses I have seen
>> >>> seem to be focused around web usage, but what about mobile apps,
>> >>> in-gallery interactives etc?
>> >>>
>> >>> I appreciate that licences vary and some will specify exact
>> >>> requirements, but I ask the question in a generic way, and perhaps
>> >>> also thinking in the spirit of the law, rather than just the letter.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks, James
>> >>>
>> >>> PS taking the most obvious example of Creative Commons, it seems that
>> >>> they have in part addressed this with 4.0 which says "In 4.0, the
>> >>> manner of attribution is explicitly allowed to be reasonable to the
>> >>> means, medium, and context of how one shares a work." (source:
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/License_Versions#Attribution_reasonable_to_means.2C_medium.2C_and_context
>> >>> with further detail, though no real explanation, at
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/License_Versions#Detailed_attribution_comparison_chart
>> >> ).
>> >>> But if you wanted to use a CC-BY 2.0 licensed image you'd be
>> >>> restricted to the very first option, and should follow the guidelines
>> >>> at http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Best_practices_for_attribution
>> >>>
>> >>> ****************************************************************
>> >>> website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
>> >>> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
>> >>> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
>> >>> [un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
>> >>> ****************************************************************
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ****************************************************************
>> >> website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
>> >> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
>> >> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
>> >> [un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
>> >> ****************************************************************
>> >>
>> >
>> > ****************************************************************
>> > website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
>> > Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
>> > Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
>> > [un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
>> > ****************************************************************
>>
>> Electric Lane
>> Consultancy and Training in Image Archiving and DAM
>> +44(0)7941316714
>> +44(0)207607 1415
>> [log in to unmask]
>> www.electriclane.co.uk
>>
>>
>> ****************************************************************
>> website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
>> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
>> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
>> [un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
>> ****************************************************************
>
>
****************************************************************
website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
[un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
****************************************************************
|