3 ms·
It seems like these are all already in the public domain. They were already free to use however we liked and neither the Getty nor anyone else could use copyrig
by encomiast 3y ago
It seems like these are all already in the public domain. They were already free to use however we liked and neither the Getty nor anyone else could use copyright to prevent that. It is nice that the Getty is providing some scanning and hosting to make them accessible, though.
The article specifically mentions Irises by Van Gogh, but the link (https://www.getty.edu/art/collection/object/103JNH https://www.getty.edu/art/collection/object/103JNH) takes you to a page where it seems like you have to ask nicely and agree to terms to use this public domain image.
- imgabe 3y agoThe artwork is in the public domain. The photo of it is not. You can take your own photo, but if you want to use a photo someone else took, then you need their permission.
- encomiast 3y agoThis was a nice idea that was tested and failed in court: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel.... Making a reproduction with a camera does not create a new copyright because copyright protects creative expression, not skill with a camera.
- imgabe 3y agoMaybe if you have money to burn taking it to court. In practice if you want to publish it you get permission. The publisher is not going to go to court for you.
- bawolff 3y agoI imagine court gets a lot cheaper when there is a precedent covering the exact situation in question.
- ghaff 3y agoAnd probably cheaper still if you have written permission to use the image in question.
- encomiast 3y agoPeople can sue for anything they like and yet we still mangage to get up in the morning and do things. Bridgeman was 25 years ago — I would be curious if in that time, you can point to any cases where someone has challenged the use of a photographic reproduction of a public domain work? My hunch is no — not because people don't want to make money licensing things or enjoy going to court, but because most people actually agree with the premise of the decision.
- imgabe 3y agoMy wife is an art historian, she's currently publishing a book and collecting permissions for all the images she wants to use. Why? Because if she doesn't the publisher won't publish her book and she won't get tenure. Do they care that there is a 25 year old legal precedent about how they could use the image for free? No, they do not. If it's an image the museum hasn't made publicly available on their website, then they still have to send it to you in order for you to use it and they're going to attach whatever terms and payment requirements to it that they want before they do that, no matter how much you tell them that it's a public domain image.
- mynameisvlad 3y agoThat sounds like it is entirely the publisher’s internal policy, not at all related to whether something is in the public domain or not. A publisher can certainly impose their own restrictions before publishing something to lower liability, but that does not mean the photographs themselves are not public domain, as GP comment explicitly showed. If you have any case law since then that proves otherwise, great, but an anecdote is not proof enough.
- ghaff 3y agoPublishers, documentary makers, etc. tend to go out of their way to cover their butts with written permissions. It's easier than having to deal with someone who thinks they're owed something after the fact.
- encomiast 3y ago