4 ms·

Not really, the copyright on the photograph will always belong to the photographer. The image is available under creative commons for non-commercial use, which

Not really, the copyright on the photograph will always belong to the photographer. The image is available under creative commons for non-commercial use, which seems fair enough.

foobar__ 6y ago
Sadly, the images for non-commercial use appear to be restricted to a medium resolution with high JPEG compression artifacts [1]. As an example I downloaded the image https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/image/1613717051 https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/image/1613717051 (~1 MB, 2500x1973). Still good enough for many use cases, but it limits personal prints. [1] https://www.britishmuseum.org/terms-use/copyright-and-permissions/images-and-photography https://www.britishmuseum.org/terms-use/copyright-and-permis...
robin_reala 6y ago
Not necessarily. There has to be a “a significant expenditure of labour”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow#United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow#United_Kingd...
abetusk 6y ago
To be clear, you're saying that a public institution [1] who's charter is to provide access to artifacts that would otherwise normally be in the public domain and who's funding comes from donations and tax dollars should be expected to then copyright it's material when providing it digitally to the public? Further, you're saying that artifacts plundered from colonialist rule should then be restricted to the people they've plundered from under restrictive licensing terms? [1] https://www.britishmuseum.org/about-us/governance https://www.britishmuseum.org/about-us/governance
- mellosouls 6y ago
  you're saying that artifacts plundered from colonialist rule Here we go... -- ps. both my shallow dismissal and your OT flamebait are discouraged here, so let's call it even and move on https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- Angostura 6y ago
  > should be expected to then copyright it's material when providing it digitally to the public? I'm saying they have the copyright.
cma 6y ago
In the Us at least that was decided based on the photographer having creative input on composition, etc. A pure scan of someone's artwork I don't think qualifies here. Some other countries have more of a laboriousness based theory though.

Not really, the copyright on the photograph will always belong to the photographer. The image is available under creative commons for non-commercial use, which seems fair enough.

foobar__ 6y ago

Sadly, the images for non-commercial use appear to be restricted to a medium resolution with high JPEG compression artifacts [1]. As an example I downloaded the image https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/image/1613717051 https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/image/1613717051 (~1 MB, 2500x1973). Still good enough for many use cases, but it limits personal prints. [1] https://www.britishmuseum.org/terms-use/copyright-and-permissions/images-and-photography https://www.britishmuseum.org/terms-use/copyright-and-permis...

robin_reala 6y ago

Not necessarily. There has to be a “a significant expenditure of labour”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow#United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow#United_Kingd...

abetusk 6y ago

To be clear, you're saying that a public institution [1] who's charter is to provide access to artifacts that would otherwise normally be in the public domain and who's funding comes from donations and tax dollars should be expected to then copyright it's material when providing it digitally to the public? Further, you're saying that artifacts plundered from colonialist rule should then be restricted to the people they've plundered from under restrictive licensing terms? [1] https://www.britishmuseum.org/about-us/governance https://www.britishmuseum.org/about-us/governance

mellosouls 6y ago
you're saying that artifacts plundered from colonialist rule Here we go... -- ps. both my shallow dismissal and your OT flamebait are discouraged here, so let's call it even and move on https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Angostura 6y ago
> should be expected to then copyright it's material when providing it digitally to the public? I'm saying they have the copyright.

cma 6y ago

In the Us at least that was decided based on the photographer having creative input on composition, etc. A pure scan of someone's artwork I don't think qualifies here. Some other countries have more of a laboriousness based theory though.