Jeff,
I cannot agree with you. No public instutution is pursuing any use of their
image for 'public good' when such use is done within reason (i.e. low
resolution for screen view).
The problem comes when high quality imagery is downloaded off the websites
of such institutions. What is the 'public good' in such a practice? What use
do the public download the images for?
Bear in mind that most such institutions, like NPG, are free to everyone,
but in order to stay open they need quite a lot of money. The fact that they
charge for assets that have costed money for them to produce in the first
place is sacred, in my opinion. Also because those assets - at high res -
are generally used to print books or magazine, which are also sold for
money.
So I don't think we 'professionals' are 'maneuvered' by anything other their
professional ethics, in trying to help devending the rights of legal owners.
It's the law, Jeff, if you don't agree with it you may try to get yourself
in a position to change it, but you cannot simply dismiss it as you don't
agree with it.
Best, Cristiano
2009/9/23 Jeff Doyle <[log in to unmask]>
> Whether or not the NPG has the legal right to frustrate access to public
> domain access seems to me to beside the point. The attempt to do so is
> ethically rather shabby.
>
> It is true that the owners of paintings have the legal right to prevent the
> creation of copies of works they hold, even if those works are in the
> public
> domain, by frustrating access. And I think we must respect the right of
> private owners to do so. But for public institutions to indulge in the same
> narrow practices is really inexcusable. Because we should not lose site of
> the fact that what these institutions are really trying to do is to hold
> onto intellectual property rights in perpetuity. (In clear and direct
> opposition to the intent and purpose of copyright law, which is to promote
> creativity.) If the NPG had their way, they would be exclusive purveyors of
> digital images of these public domain rights not just for the remainder of
> 2009, or even the next decade, but FOREVER. That fact that museums are
> members of the deserving poor and need the revenue is, to my mind, hardly
> disculpatory.
>
> I would suggest that one big issues here (on the MCG list serve) is that
> many museum professionals find themselves in the awkward position of having
> to defend or condone the practices of the NPG and similar institutions - or
> at least avoid taking a public position lest it have a deleterious effect
> on
> their professional career. Museums professionals are being maneuvered by
> circumstance into acting as enemies of the public good when most of them
> started their careers hoping to be champions of the same.
>
> Jeff Doyle
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 3:55 AM, Dan Zambonini <[log in to unmask]
> >wrote:
>
> >
> > Putting any attempts at preventative measures into these tools, which
> might
> > aversely affect performance or usability for the vast majority of 'legal'
> > users, seems (to me) to be a bad idea.
> >
>
> ****************************************************************
> For mcg information visit the mcg website at
> http://www.museumscomputergroup.org.uk
> To manage your subscription to this email list visit
> http://www.museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email.shtml
> ****************************************************************
>
--
Cristiano Bianchi
Keepthinking
Bull Inn Court
15 Maiden Lane
London WC2E 7NG
t. +44 20 7240 8014
f. +44 20 7240 8015
m. +44 7939 041169 (uk)
m. +39 +39 392 9939 359 (it)
[log in to unmask]
****************************************************************
For mcg information visit the mcg website at
http://www.museumscomputergroup.org.uk
To manage your subscription to this email list visit
http://www.museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email.shtml
****************************************************************
|
