[HN Gopher] Museums with CC0 Collections
___________________________________________________________________
Museums with CC0 Collections
Author : robin_reala
Score : 75 points
Date : 2023-01-10 09:42 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (standardebooks.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (standardebooks.org)
| loupol wrote:
| Bookmarking that for later use. It can be hard to be certain an
| image is truly public domain. Museum collections are nice because
| you're generally certain of the origin of the image.
|
| I also found the following section ("Clearance FAQ") quite
| entertaining by the way.
| sudobash1 wrote:
| > I found a great painting, and it's really old, and the author
| died a long time ago, but I can't find a reproduction in a book.
| Can I use it?
|
| > No. You must find a reproduction of your selected painting in a
| book published before January 1, 1928.
|
| Can anybody explain why the emphasis on needing to find an out of
| copyright book with a reproduction of the painting? If there is a
| painting from (eg) the 17th century which was never reproduced in
| a book, what is the potential legal problem with treating it as
| public domain? I would assume that any art from the 17th century
| is now PD. Is the issue with the "date of first publication"?
| Even if a centuries-old painting was never "published" is it
| possible for it to be copyrighted?
|
| As I understand. Given Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.[1],
| and faithful reproduction of a 2d PD work is also PD.
|
| 1:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel....
| acabal wrote:
| In the US, copyright status is determined by when something was
| published, not how old it is. The two are not related. That's
| how we get stupid things like the University of California and
| the Mark Twain Foundation claiming a copyright on his
| autobiography, written circa 1909, until 2047 - 137 years after
| his death.[1]
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobiography_of_Mark_Twain#Ma...
| sudobash1 wrote:
| So if I found an amateur painting that was centuries old in
| an attic somewhere, and posted a scan of it on my blog, I
| would then be the copyright holder of that painting? That
| feels so wrong.
| [deleted]
| boppo1 wrote:
| No, you would be the copyright holder of your photograph.
| sudobash1 wrote:
| My understanding of copyright rulings in the US (eg see
| Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. above) is that a
| faithful photograph of a painting is not considered
| "original". Therefore, if I do not have the copyright to
| the painting, neither would I have copyright over the
| photo.
| boppo1 wrote:
| It's not the painting at issue, it's the reproduction.
| Photographs of paintings have copyrights that belong to the
| photographer. If you have access the the old painting and take
| a picture of it, you control the copyright of that
| reproduction.
|
| I think the confusion here stems from the fact that that
| statement assumes you don't have access to the painting, which
| is the most common case.
| 5evOX5hTZ9mYa9E wrote:
| Wikimedia Commons disagrees. I know they're not arbiter of
| law, but you'd hope they have it right given the scale of how
| wrong they'd be if they were wrong.
|
| https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reuse_of_PD-
| Art_p...
| sudobash1 wrote:
| > Photographs of paintings have copyrights that belong to the
| photographer.
|
| This is highly dependent of the country that you are in. In
| the case of the US, the courts have ruled that a faithful
| reproduction (eg photograph) is not original enough to merit
| a separate copyright (see my like to Bridgeman Art Library v.
| Corel Corporation above).
|
| Additionally, the post is not saying that you are required to
| use the exact photo found in the out of copyright book, but
| rather that you are required to find a photo (any photo) of
| the same painting in an out of copyright book.
| thisisparker wrote:
| I'm speculating a bit here, but I suspect that answer reflects
| a practically risk-averse read of the same case, for two
| reasons. One is that, as a district court opinion, Bridgeman
| isn't _necessarily_ binding federal precedent. (I don't want to
| overstate that point, because Bridgeman is well established and
| has been found persuasive by other courts. Still, given that
| this site appears to distribute the resulting ebooks itself, I
| assume their appetite for risk here is pretty small.)
|
| Even following Bridgeman though, there is a teeny bit of
| analysis that you have to do to determine that the reproduction
| is a faithful photographic copy of the original. In most cases
| that's straightforward, but again, if you really want to limit
| risk and as in this case your application doesn't require a
| particular image, it might be worth cutting out that analysis
| altogether and going with media that is simply outside of the
| range of copyright terms.
| TimZehta wrote:
| also see https://wordpress.org/openverse/
|
| it allows you to filter to only public domain images
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-10 23:01 UTC)