Presentation given on April 20, 2010 at Columbia University. Introducing concepts around copyright and licensing in art museum and how they interact with Wikipedia's policies. Introducing the concept of "de-accessioning by copyright"
Andrew Dunn - CC-by-SA
And a quick intro to Wikimedia...
the freedom to use the work and enjoy the beneﬁts of using it
the freedom to study the work and to apply knowledge acquired
the freedom to make and redistribute copies, in whole or in part,
of the information or expression
the freedom to make changes and improvements, and to
distribute derivative works
Engaging the community with their culture.
Collect, preserve and share that culture.
Art + Copyright =
Nate.erlin - CC-by-NC-ND http://www.ﬂickr.com/photos/nateerlin/520085236/
Some potential issues
for those images...
• Freedom of Panorama • Commercial licenses
• Cultural rights • Attribution
• Donor restrictions • TPMs/DRMs
• Museum photo policy • Fair use / fair dealing
• Different national laws • Copyright in scans
Tricks and traps for
and access to Art...
1. License conditions
(in real life)
Massachusetts museum of contemporary art:
“Our policy is to allow photography
Reasons given for “no photo”
• I.P. - this should be nuanced, not blanket to everything
• Conservation - Fair enough, accounts for no ﬂash
• Revenue streams - most common, if not admitted
• Disruption of others - compare with sketching
• Security of the building - really?!
http://museumtwo.blogspot.com/ Caro Wallis - cc-by-NC
Licensing Conditions on 3rd
If you take a
supposed to) Richard Giles - CC-by-SA (??)
and give it to
me, am I bound
by your license
2. Licensing Conditions
National Library of Australia permissions statement.
First page of Captain William Bligh’s
log book - on the NLA Website.
Image now also available, without permission, at:
3. Fair Use
Same article in:
4. Freedom of
Feist v. Rural Telephone (1991)
Bridgeman v. Corel (1999)
Originality v. “Sweat of the brow”
Some obviously haven’t
heard about this law...
This is the Frick Collection’s copyright statement.
Is it deliberately ﬂouting New York law?
To take something that is the public’s* and to
make access restrictions on its digital
manifestation that would not be countenanced for
the original object is effectively...
...and just like real-life de-accessioning in museums
it’s sometimes necessary.
But neither activity should be done just because
some money can be made.
*in a publicly funded collection and/or in the Public Domain
Paying a license fee
sometimes feels like a papal
indulgence. It’s often not to
cover costs, but to make a
problem disappear. I don’t
mind paying for staff time
and materials. I do mind
paying for access to already
digitised and Public Domain
material and having to sign
a usage contract in order
to receive it.
The kind of things some claim
copyright over! (examples)
Wikimedia takes a stand,
so you don’t have to.
Peace, Love & Metadata