Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Open Access to Art Images

Presentation at Open and Engaged, 2019 Open Access Week at the British Library

Related Audiobooks

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Open Access to Art Images

  1. 1. THE LADIES WALDEGRAVE, SIR JOSHUA REYNOLDS (1780) NATIONAL GALLERIES OF SCOTLAND, © NATIONAL GALLERIES OF SCOTLAND? OPEN ACCESS TO ART IMAGES Andrea Wallace, University of Exeter Simon Tanner, King’s College London
  2. 2. 1. THE GLOBAL STATE OF (GLAM) OPEN ACCESS 2. WHY?! THE GLOBAL STATE OF LEGAL PRECEDENT 3. SO, WHERE ARE WE NOW? 4. GAPS IN THE NEW LEGAL FRAMEWORKS 5. WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT?
  3. 3. GLOBAL STATE OF OPEN ACCESS AMARA: DAWNL ON THE TIGRIS, DONALD MAXWELL (FIRST WORLD WAR) IMPERIAL WAR MUSEUM, © IWM (ART.AWM ART 1853)
  4. 4. http://bit.ly/OpenGLAMsurvey
  5. 5. Why we started the survey ● Information gap ○ Lack of up-to-date information on this topic ○ No ‘shared place’ to see/add relevant data ○ Perceived European & North American bias in the field; we are motivated to discover the global picture ● To develop a resource for ○ people who want to find & use open content or data ○ GLAMs exploring open access data & policy Open GLAM around the world: developing a global survey of open access policy and practice in the GLAM sector Andrea Wallace and Douglas McCarthy, CC BY
  6. 6. Definition of open access ‘Open means anyone can freely access, use, modify, and share for any purpose.’ (The Open Definition) Open GLAM around the world: developing a global survey of open access policy and practice in the GLAM sector Andrea Wallace and Douglas McCarthy, CC BY
  7. 7. Conformant licences & rights statements ● Public Domain Mark ● CC0 ● CC BY ● CC BY-SA ● No Known Copyright and equivalents Open GLAM around the world: developing a global survey of open access policy and practice in the GLAM sector Andrea Wallace and Douglas McCarthy, CC BY
  8. 8. Scope ● The survey covers data that GLAMs make available on their websites and/or external platforms such as Github, Europeana, German Digital Library or Wikimedia Commons ● The survey only covers digital surrogates of objects in the public domain, where any term of copyright for the material object has expired or never existed in the first place ● Only open access data is eligible (no NC or ND licences) Open GLAM around the world: developing a global survey of open access policy and practice in the GLAM sector Andrea Wallace and Douglas McCarthy, CC BY
  9. 9. Global GLAMs Compared to UK GLAMs Rest of world UK: some eligibledata UK: all eligible data • 10 CC BY-SA • 20 CC BY • 7 No known copyright restrictions • 1 CC0 • 2 Public Domain • 1 CC BY-SA • Brighton Art Museum • 1 CC BY • Welcome Collection • 2 Public Domain • York Museums Trust • National Library of Wales 605 43 Some eligible data 4 39 All 417 Some eligible data 187 All eligible data 647 Total
  10. 10. But the ticket income! Global Museums & Galleries only: Free entry < €5 €5 to < €10 €10 to < €15 €15 to < €20 €20 + 39 11 17 14 11 4 All eligible data: 39 FREE 11 less than €5 17 from €5 to less than €10 14 from €10 to less than €15 11 from €15 to less than €20 4 from €20 + Rijksmuseum
  11. 11. 0 PD / CC0 275 CC BY 136 CC BY-SA 460 CC BY-ND 2,304 CC BY-NC 3,539 CC BY-NC-SA 18,312 CC BY-NC-ND 220,298 IMAGES 25,027 CC LICENSED 411 OPEN CC 460 OPEN BUT ND
  12. 12. S U R R O G AT E S : I N - C O PY R I G H T v P U B L I C D O M A I N © David Hockney License this image © Tate, CC BY-NC-ND License this image
  13. 13. The Fall of Man, Cornelis Cornelisz. van Haarlem, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, No risk / © Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam WHY?! THE STATE OF LEGAL PRECEDENT
  14. 14. ORIGINALITY IN REPRODUCTIONS United Kingdom United States European Union Germany Threshold “skill, labour, and judgment” “modicum of creativity” “author’s own intellectual creation” “personal intellectual creation” Relevant law Copyright Designs and Patent Act US Constitution and Copyright Act Article 6 of the Copyright Directive German Copyright Act Most relevant case Graves’ Case, 1869 ( + Temple Island) Bridgeman Art Library v Corel I (1998) and II (1999) Eva Maria Painer v Standard VerlagsGmbH (2011) Reiss Engelhorn Museum v Wikimedia (2018) How do we measure it? no difference in substance between UK and EU thresholds AKA “free and creative choices” = personal stamp (Painer) Framing of subject matter, lighting, background, position of camera, moment of capture, etc., but NO “slavish reproduction” “free and creative choices” during the preparation (back-ground, pose, and lighting), capture (framing, angle, atmosphere), printing (techniques or computer editing)” = personal stamp “free and creative choices” = personal stamp (Painer) YES,photographic reproductionsofartworks areoriginal NO,photographic reproductionsofartworks arenotoriginal YES,portraitphotographs areoriginal NO,photographicreproductions ofartworksarenotoriginal,but canbeprotectedas“other photographs”
  15. 15. OTHER PHOTOGRAPHS Austria 50 years Denmark 50 years Finland 50 years Germany 50 years Iceland 50 years Italy 20 years Norway 15 years Spain 25 years Sweden 50 years “Significant skill and labour […] cannot justify [copyright] protection if they do not express any originality” (Football Dataco, 2012)
  16. 16. Reiss Engelhorn Museum v. Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Deutschland Rudolf Stricker, Wikimedia Commons
  17. 17. © Reiss Engelhorn Museum
  18. 18. ORIGINAL PHOTO O T H E R P H O T O A U T H O R ’ S O W N I N T E L L E C T U A L C R E AT I O N WHAT IS REQUIRED OTHER PHOTO YES NO REPRODUCTIONS = “other photographs” Protected as “simple light photographs” with “minimum personal intellectual input” Article 72 of German Copyright Act FREE AND CREATIVE CHOICES Austria 50 years Denmark 50 years Finland 50 years Germany 50 years Iceland 50 years Italy 20 years Norway 15 years Spain 25 years Sweden 50 years
  19. 19. A GENERAL VIEW IN OOTACAMUND, ROBERT HAVELL, RICHARD BARRON (1826) BRITISH LIBRARY, PUBLIC DOMAIN, © BRITISH LIBRARY EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENTS & WIDER EFFECTS
  20. 20. ARTICLE 14 OF THE (REVISED) DSM DIRECTIVE !
  21. 21. A YOUNG WOMAN STANDING AT A VIRGINAL, JOHANNES VERMEER (1670-2) THE NATIONAL GALLERY, LONDON, © THE NATIONAL GALLERY, LONDON, CC BY-NC-ND SO… WHERE ARE WE NOW?
  22. 22. ORIGINAL PHOTO O T H E R P H O T O A U T H O R ’ S O W N I N T E L L E C T U A L C R E AT I O N WHAT IS REQUIRED OTHER PHOTO YES NO REPRODUCTIONS = “other photographs” Protected as “simple light photographs” with “minimum personal intellectual input” Article 72 of German Copyright Act FREE AND CREATIVE CHOICES Austria 50 years Denmark 50 years Finland 50 years Germany 50 years Iceland 50 years Italy 20 years Norway 15 years Spain 25 years Sweden 50 years
  23. 23. ORIGINAL PHOTO O T H E R P H O T O A U T H O R ’ S O W N I N T E L L E C T U A L C R E AT I O N WHAT IS REQUIRED OTHER PHOTO YES NO REPRODUCTIONS = “other photographs” Protected as “simple light photographs” with “minimum personal intellectual input” Article 72 of German Copyright Act FREE AND CREATIVE CHOICES Austria 50 years Denmark 50 years Finland 50 years Germany 50 years Iceland 50 years Italy 20 years Norway 15 years Spain 25 years Sweden 50 years
  24. 24. ‘Crowd looking at the Mona Lisa at the Louvre,’ by Victor Grigas, CC BY-SA 4.0, available at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=40250423
  25. 25. Installation view of Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain (1917), James Broad, Flickr
  26. 26. U K I P O C O PY R I G H T N OT I C E 2 0 1 5 • Cites CJEU • Originality “seems unlikely” • Guidance is not binding
  27. 27. MONTGOMERYSHIRE WAR WEAPONS WEEK (1511246), GEOFF CHARLES (1941) NATIONAL LIBRARY OF WALES, NO KNOWN COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS | FLICKR COMMONS GAPS: ARTICLE 14 & PSI DIRECTIVE
  28. 28. • “considerable differences …relating to the exploitation of public cultural resources,” • “very different regulatory and cultural environments” • “hinder the smooth functioning of the internal market and the proper development of an information society.” (Recitals 22-24) ”principle of ‘open by design and by default’” and to “go beyond the minimum requirements set out”
  29. 29. A WHEATFIELD, WITH CYPRESSES, VINCENT VAN GOGH (1889) THE NATIONAL GALLERY, LONDON, © ALL RIGHTS RESERVED | ARTUK MIND YOUR Ts AND Cs (AND ARTICLE 17)
  30. 30. STUDY OF A DOG, FRANCIS BACON (1952) TATE, MODERN, © TATE • SORT OUT COPYRIGHT IN 2D REPRODUCTIONS OF 2D WORKS ALREADY • OPEN ACCESS 2.0 IS HERE AND THE UK IS FALLING BEHIND • WHAT IS THE GREATER IMPACT OF CLOSED ACCESS ON KNOWLEDGE AND CULTURAL MEMORY?
  31. 31. https://openglam.org/principles/
  32. 32. Art for All works to support UK cultural heritage institutions to open digital collections for unrestricted public reuse. We take the position that no new rights should arise in faithful reproductions of public domain works and other non-original data. We advocate for the government to increase public funding for digitization and release the heritage sector from obligations to generate revenue from images. Evidence shows that open access galvanises the development of new knowledge and creative works, and has a transformative effect on the institutions that adopt it. But the path to open access can be overwhelming. Our goal is to aid the movement by campaigning for the necessary support at government and institutional levels. In doing so, Art for All seeks to help clear the path toward meaningful access to the breadth of cultural materials cared for by UK institutions.

    Be the first to comment

Presentation at Open and Engaged, 2019 Open Access Week at the British Library

Views

Total views

194

On Slideshare

0

From embeds

0

Number of embeds

1

Actions

Downloads

1

Shares

0

Comments

0

Likes

0

×