6 ms·

I really don't understand your comment, and all subsequent responses along the same line. The digitized van Gogh paintings are perfect copies of the original pu

I really don't understand your comment, and all subsequent responses along the same line. The digitized van Gogh paintings are perfect copies of the original public domain works. For the US, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. [1] makes it perfectly clear that the images are not protected by copyright, and there is similar law and legislation in Europe. What do you mean with the ability of the museums to choose a license for the paintings, and what is the "sub-A4" license you refer to? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel....

robin_reala 8y ago
I believe the problem lies in the wording of ‘exact’. Without a direct comparison to the source material ‘exact’ could be challenged. There’s also the problem of exact dating of a piece of art as being pre-1923. With a reproduction in a published book you have a publishing date in the colophon that logically must be the same year or later than the reproduction of the artwork inside. Without that you’re relying on the artist’s date of death or supporting material such as an original bill of sale to make the distinction. Basically, the problem is that when you’re releasing a derivative work with CC0 you need to be 100% sure that your original licensing is correct. We’re probably being overly-cautious, but luckily the imprint style allows us to be. (The A4 licence comes from their T&Cs PDF: “Images of the Van Gogh Museum collection up to and including A4 size in TIF format may be downloaded and distributed for non-commercial use”.)
- biztos 8y ago
  What if I download an "A4" and distribute an "A3" with exactly the same pixels?
  - robin_reala 8y ago
    No idea, and that’s the problem: the licence is badly defined. Ideally they would have used one of the pre-existing CC licences that people already understand.

robin_reala 8y ago

I believe the problem lies in the wording of ‘exact’. Without a direct comparison to the source material ‘exact’ could be challenged. There’s also the problem of exact dating of a piece of art as being pre-1923. With a reproduction in a published book you have a publishing date in the colophon that logically must be the same year or later than the reproduction of the artwork inside. Without that you’re relying on the artist’s date of death or supporting material such as an original bill of sale to make the distinction. Basically, the problem is that when you’re releasing a derivative work with CC0 you need to be 100% sure that your original licensing is correct. We’re probably being overly-cautious, but luckily the imprint style allows us to be. (The A4 licence comes from their T&Cs PDF: “Images of the Van Gogh Museum collection up to and including A4 size in TIF format may be downloaded and distributed for non-commercial use”.)

biztos 8y ago
What if I download an "A4" and distribute an "A3" with exactly the same pixels?
- robin_reala 8y ago
  No idea, and that’s the problem: the licence is badly defined. Ideally they would have used one of the pre-existing CC licences that people already understand.