Thanks Mike!
From a policy p.o.v, I'm interested in how disastrous these things are in practice - is it a matter of thinking 'drat, my slightly elderly web experiment has fallen over' -- or are there many cases of museums that have really heavily invested in something Google has made, who then find themselves in big trouble? (I suppose I'm also wondering how many people have even sthg like Google Arts & Culture as a really central offer, rather than a nice-to-have).
Ideologically, I hugely prefer the idea of the sector producing something long-term in-house, and not being at the mercy of tech giants and their dodgy ethics. But I've also had sites and tech bite the dust for all sorts of other reasons (the drupal upgrade that was just not worth the hassle etc.) Has anyone created a 'how safe do you want your content to be' sliding scale, ranging from "immortality" (write it on ceramic tiles and bury it in a mountain) to "if it hangs together for 18 months, I am content (freeware might sort you out).
The Matterport stuff with what sounds like creeping, retrospective copyright grabs sounds properly worrying though: what if you have an image within your 3D scene where you have e.g. permissions from Getty to use for museum purposes, and then Matterport unilaterally declares that it can do what it likes with it. Do the Getty rights people come after you, or Matterport? (and again, is this a credible situation, or am I catastrophising a bit?)
Kate
****************************************************************
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/
****************************************************************
|