4 ms·

It would be even cooler if they weren't claiming copyright on their reproduction of public domain images. "The use of these contents for commercial purposes is

It would be even cooler if they weren't claiming copyright on their reproduction of public domain images. "The use of these contents for commercial purposes is subject to payment and covered by a license."

guessbest 11y ago
I don't understand how images outside of copyright can have a license enforced.
- cooper12 11y ago
  Some countries like the UK have a "Sweat of the Brow" [0] doctrine which lets them claim copyright by virtue of the effort put in to compile the work. However it isn't recognized in the U.S because they doesn't see this as requiring creativity so it doesn't count as a derivative work. This has the benefit that companies can't circumvent the public domain without altering the work, but it also disincentives them from digitizing older works. I don't know if french law acknowledges the doctrine or not. Regardless it is pretty unbecoming of a project started by government archivists and headed by a national library, though I do understand that they might want to recoup some of their costs. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow
  - guessbest 11y ago
    But the site with the reproductions is hosted[1] in the USA[2], right? If so, then one could conclude that there is no copyright on the digital reproductions. [1] http://frda.stanford.edu/ http://frda.stanford.edu/ [2] © Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305
    - cooper12 11y ago
      I think the copyright notice at the bottom is just website boilerplate. it's also on the main Stanford library website. The about page says "For commercial use, contact: utilisation.commerciale@bnf.fr", so it is the Bibliothèque nationale de France that is claiming copyright. IANAL, but I think you'd be pretty safe using those images on servers hosted in the USA because then you'd be under the jurisdiction of U.S copyright law, but things can get messy as in this case where a British Museum threatened to take the Wikimedia Foundation to UK court: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Portrait_Gallery_and_Wikimedia_Foundation_copyright_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Portrait_Gallery_and_....
- padraic7a 11y ago
  The original image might be out of copyright, but someone's photograph of it is not. So, if you can take your own image you can do what you want with it, but you don't have any right to someone else's photograph of it.
  - guessbest 11y ago
    > Note, as we have indicated in previous posts, there is no copyright in a slavish photo reproduction of a public domain painting. via http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/public-domain/welcome/ http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/public-domain/welcome/ I know that this is not true, so I linked to a site which will back me up on it.
- adrianN 11y ago
  I don't think this would work in Germany (IANAL), because it only counts as a reproduction of the work and does not meet the Schöpfungshöhe.
illumen 11y ago
Considering the subject matter, the commercialization of these images in the public domain by the upper class is... quite funny.
- seszett 11y ago
  Even though I really don't agree with what the BnF is doing, I don't think you can call the National library some kind of "representative of the upper class". It's the nation commercializing national property, which is far from ideal, but still hugely better than the pre-revolutionary situation.
  - illumen 11y ago
    You could definitely call Standford part of the upper class. The BnF comes from the Royal library, and the new building was announced by the President of France. It's one of the upper class organisations that has moved through various types of governments from Royalty to Napolean to modern Presidents. Now it is supervised by the Ministry of Culture and Communication. 3000 people daily go through the reading rooms, which is a very small percentage of the French public -- less than 1%, less than 0.1%.
    - seszett 11y ago
      Stanford doesn't commercialize the images though. The French National Library does, and actually Stanford makes freely available the highest resolutions[0] which are otherwise sold 25€ or 50€ by the BnF (which also sells, more legitimately in my opinion, high-quality physical prints for reasonable prices). [0]https://stacks.stanford.edu/image/iiif/bv002kr2012%252FT0000001_2/full/5008,4040/0/default.jpg?action=download https://stacks.stanford.edu/image/iiif/bv002kr2012%252FT0000...
      - illumen 11y ago
        Standford is using these in a commercial manner, and is also a commercial organisation. "If you use content for general research, even if not for any specific purpose, and you or your organisation generates income, that counts as commercial use. So does using content for pro-bono work (from the Latin pro bono publico, meaning 'for the public good', or working for free), if it also enhances your reputation or leads to income-generating work in any way whatsoever." Why was Stanford given permission where as no permission has been given to all French citizens?
bane 11y ago
So for fun, let's say they're assertion is legally valid, that the scans (not the original images) are copyrightable. What stops me from then taking screen caps of all their images, or copying the framebuffer from my graphics card or something (effectively "scans") and copyrighting those?

guessbest 11y ago

I don't understand how images outside of copyright can have a license enforced.

cooper12 11y ago
Some countries like the UK have a "Sweat of the Brow" [0] doctrine which lets them claim copyright by virtue of the effort put in to compile the work. However it isn't recognized in the U.S because they doesn't see this as requiring creativity so it doesn't count as a derivative work. This has the benefit that companies can't circumvent the public domain without altering the work, but it also disincentives them from digitizing older works. I don't know if french law acknowledges the doctrine or not. Regardless it is pretty unbecoming of a project started by government archivists and headed by a national library, though I do understand that they might want to recoup some of their costs. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow
- guessbest 11y ago
  But the site with the reproductions is hosted[1] in the USA[2], right? If so, then one could conclude that there is no copyright on the digital reproductions. [1] http://frda.stanford.edu/ http://frda.stanford.edu/ [2] © Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305
  - cooper12 11y ago
    I think the copyright notice at the bottom is just website boilerplate. it's also on the main Stanford library website. The about page says "For commercial use, contact: utilisation.commerciale@bnf.fr", so it is the Bibliothèque nationale de France that is claiming copyright. IANAL, but I think you'd be pretty safe using those images on servers hosted in the USA because then you'd be under the jurisdiction of U.S copyright law, but things can get messy as in this case where a British Museum threatened to take the Wikimedia Foundation to UK court: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Portrait_Gallery_and_Wikimedia_Foundation_copyright_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Portrait_Gallery_and_....
padraic7a 11y ago
The original image might be out of copyright, but someone's photograph of it is not. So, if you can take your own image you can do what you want with it, but you don't have any right to someone else's photograph of it.
- guessbest 11y ago
  > Note, as we have indicated in previous posts, there is no copyright in a slavish photo reproduction of a public domain painting. via http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/public-domain/welcome/ http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/public-domain/welcome/ I know that this is not true, so I linked to a site which will back me up on it.
adrianN 11y ago
I don't think this would work in Germany (IANAL), because it only counts as a reproduction of the work and does not meet the Schöpfungshöhe.

illumen 11y ago

Considering the subject matter, the commercialization of these images in the public domain by the upper class is... quite funny.

seszett 11y ago
Even though I really don't agree with what the BnF is doing, I don't think you can call the National library some kind of "representative of the upper class". It's the nation commercializing national property, which is far from ideal, but still hugely better than the pre-revolutionary situation.
- illumen 11y ago
  You could definitely call Standford part of the upper class. The BnF comes from the Royal library, and the new building was announced by the President of France. It's one of the upper class organisations that has moved through various types of governments from Royalty to Napolean to modern Presidents. Now it is supervised by the Ministry of Culture and Communication. 3000 people daily go through the reading rooms, which is a very small percentage of the French public -- less than 1%, less than 0.1%.
  - seszett 11y ago
    Stanford doesn't commercialize the images though. The French National Library does, and actually Stanford makes freely available the highest resolutions[0] which are otherwise sold 25€ or 50€ by the BnF (which also sells, more legitimately in my opinion, high-quality physical prints for reasonable prices). [0]https://stacks.stanford.edu/image/iiif/bv002kr2012%252FT0000001_2/full/5008,4040/0/default.jpg?action=download https://stacks.stanford.edu/image/iiif/bv002kr2012%252FT0000...
    - illumen 11y ago
      Standford is using these in a commercial manner, and is also a commercial organisation. "If you use content for general research, even if not for any specific purpose, and you or your organisation generates income, that counts as commercial use. So does using content for pro-bono work (from the Latin pro bono publico, meaning 'for the public good', or working for free), if it also enhances your reputation or leads to income-generating work in any way whatsoever." Why was Stanford given permission where as no permission has been given to all French citizens?

bane 11y ago

So for fun, let's say they're assertion is legally valid, that the scans (not the original images) are copyrightable. What stops me from then taking screen caps of all their images, or copying the framebuffer from my graphics card or something (effectively "scans") and copyrighting those?