3 ms·
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:
by 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 agoSo 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 agoThe 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.