On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 at 10:12, Alice Read <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> the Paul Mellon Centre has launched its online photographic archive today.
>
> It is an open-access archive of more than 100,000 digitised photographs of British art and architecture.
> offered with a Creative Commons licence for non-commercial purposes. In doing so
> the PMC joins major international institutions like the Rijksmuseum, whose open
> access image collections have become significant resources for new artistic and research projects.
It's true that the Rijksmuseum's, and similar institutions',
collections have become significant resources; but there is a
significant difference between what the Rijksmuseum are doing, and
what PMC are doing:
The Rijksmuseum make images available using the Creative Commons Zero
(CC0) Public Domain Statement:
https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/research/conduct-research/data/policy
and rightly point out:
Many of the objects in the Rijksmuseum are in the public domain. This means
that copyright is no longer applicable and that the objects are
public property.
The public must be able to reap the benefits of that.
The PMC on the other hand, are claiming that reproductions of images like these:
https://photoarchive.paul-mellon-centre.ac.uk/objects/403833/frances-countess-of-clarendon-16171667
(by David Loggan; died ~1692)
https://photoarchive.paul-mellon-centre.ac.uk/objects/403813/on-the-thames
(by John Varley, died 1842)
https://photoarchive.paul-mellon-centre.ac.uk/objects/403834/church-and-vicarage
(by Amelia Long, died 1837)
https://photoarchive.paul-mellon-centre.ac.uk/objects/406318/hats
(anon, published 1773)
are, despite their age, and the deaths of their creators centuries
ago, still protected by copyright.
The UK Intellectual Property Office have stated that:
according to established case law, the courts have said that
copyright can only
subsist in subject matter that is original in the sense that it is
the author's own
'intellectual creation'. Given this criterion, it seems unlikely
that what is merely
a retouched, digitised image of an older work can be considered as
'original'.
This is because there will generally be minimal scope for a creator
to exercise
free and creative choices if their aim is simply to make a faithful
reproduction
of an existing work
I'd be interested to know on what basis the PMC think they can assert
rights in such works; and even if they believe they have a legal right
to do so, why they think it is correct to do so given the stance of
the Rijksmuseum and others.
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.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/
****************************************************************
|