3 ms·

Ah, okay you are able to print them because some are public domain. But it doesn't look like all of them are? Looking at the category that I am guessing you pul

Ah, okay you are able to print them because some are public domain. But it doesn't look like all of them are? Looking at the category that I am guessing you pulled these from (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Google_Art_Project https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Google_Art_Proje...), some have pretty restrictive rights. One of your recently featured artworks (https://www.artpip.com/artwork/57a4cf0970f12152abacdf78 https://www.artpip.com/artwork/57a4cf0970f12152abacdf78) seems to be owned by the Van Gogh Museum and needs a license to be printed. If I wanted to order a print of that, do you have the correct license?

mcjiggerlog 9y ago
Most of the images have been sourced from wikimedia and are all considered in the public domain. See [1] for an example of wikimedia's position on licencing: 'The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain".' Also, it's a $9.99 one-off payment, not monthly. Serving tens of thousands of high-res images a day adds up, so there's some extra paid features there for those that particularly enjoy the app and feel like supporting the project. [1] https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Van_Gogh_-_Starry_Night_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Van_Gogh_-_Starry_...
- firmgently 9y ago
  So that means "if the artwork is public domain, a faithful reproduction/photo of it is also public domain". But if the original artwork is not PD it's not covered by that statement. I can imagine a situation where an artwork is copyrighted but someone takes a photo of it and uploads it to Wikimedia saying 'here, use my photo'.. but they don't have rights over the original. Which would be like camming a film in the cinema and saying 'the original is copyrighted but my reproduction is PD'. Not trying to knock the idea - I'm an artist myself and think anything that helps spread and communicate art is great - good on you. Just something to keep an eye on.
  - kaffeemitsahne 9y ago
    The painting in grandparent's comment is from 1868, I don't think anyone can meaningfully claim the copyright to that, no matter how good of a picture they took.

mcjiggerlog 9y ago

Most of the images have been sourced from wikimedia and are all considered in the public domain. See [1] for an example of wikimedia's position on licencing: 'The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain".' Also, it's a $9.99 one-off payment, not monthly. Serving tens of thousands of high-res images a day adds up, so there's some extra paid features there for those that particularly enjoy the app and feel like supporting the project. [1] https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Van_Gogh_-_Starry_Night_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Van_Gogh_-_Starry_...

firmgently 9y ago
So that means "if the artwork is public domain, a faithful reproduction/photo of it is also public domain". But if the original artwork is not PD it's not covered by that statement. I can imagine a situation where an artwork is copyrighted but someone takes a photo of it and uploads it to Wikimedia saying 'here, use my photo'.. but they don't have rights over the original. Which would be like camming a film in the cinema and saying 'the original is copyrighted but my reproduction is PD'. Not trying to knock the idea - I'm an artist myself and think anything that helps spread and communicate art is great - good on you. Just something to keep an eye on.
- kaffeemitsahne 9y ago
  The painting in grandparent's comment is from 1868, I don't think anyone can meaningfully claim the copyright to that, no matter how good of a picture they took.