3 ms·

The original might be out of copyright but any whoever scanned/photographed them has a new copyright. Pretty silly.

by aw3c2 13y ago

ig1 13y ago
No they don't. See Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. - scans/photographs that primarily seek to reproduce the original work don't qualify for copyright.
- teddyh 13y ago
  And this is the real reason why museums don't allow photography.
rogerhoward 13y ago
Not (necessarily) true, though a little unsettled. Ever since Bridgeman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_...) most museums have accepted that no matter how much effort goes into the imaging, some imaging simply does not qualify as novel enough to warrant new copyright. This ruling is, as I understand it, not actually binding in other districts, but it's generally accepted. Because imaging of flat art, without a frame, is inherently intended to add as little interpretation as possible, it's generally accepted that reproduction imaging of 2D art is not copyrightable. This is the Getty's own position (I worked there until a few months ago, from the same department that brought this project out). Any other questions I can answer about this project I will.
- jedahan 13y ago
  Yeah, and it gets even weirder when you start learning about representations of 3d art. Photos of non-flat art do renew that copyright right? But what precedent exists re: 3D scans of objects in a collection? We share what we can, which right now is limited to 123D catch generated models, up on http://thingiverse.com/met http://thingiverse.com/met . Disclosure: I work at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and am trying my hardest to share all our data with the world, but have learned that what is legal and what is museum policy can and often do clash. Its super interesting. If you want relatively low resolution images of our collection, feel free to visit http://scrAPI.org http://scrAPI.org , which just scrapes our live site. Its a workaround until our policy changes. Roger, how was working for Getty while you were there? Was this your main project? How supportive where those involved in sharing the data? If hackernews isn't the most appropriate place to answer these questions, I'd be glad if you could take the time to go off-site for a conversation.

The original might be out of copyright but any whoever scanned/photographed them has a new copyright. Pretty silly.

by aw3c2 13y ago

The original might be out of copyright but any whoever scanned/photographed them has a new copyright. Pretty silly.

ig1 13y ago

No they don't. See Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. - scans/photographs that primarily seek to reproduce the original work don't qualify for copyright.

teddyh 13y ago
And this is the real reason why museums don't allow photography.

rogerhoward 13y ago

Not (necessarily) true, though a little unsettled. Ever since Bridgeman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_...) most museums have accepted that no matter how much effort goes into the imaging, some imaging simply does not qualify as novel enough to warrant new copyright. This ruling is, as I understand it, not actually binding in other districts, but it's generally accepted. Because imaging of flat art, without a frame, is inherently intended to add as little interpretation as possible, it's generally accepted that reproduction imaging of 2D art is not copyrightable. This is the Getty's own position (I worked there until a few months ago, from the same department that brought this project out). Any other questions I can answer about this project I will.

jedahan 13y ago
Yeah, and it gets even weirder when you start learning about representations of 3d art. Photos of non-flat art do renew that copyright right? But what precedent exists re: 3D scans of objects in a collection? We share what we can, which right now is limited to 123D catch generated models, up on http://thingiverse.com/met http://thingiverse.com/met . Disclosure: I work at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and am trying my hardest to share all our data with the world, but have learned that what is legal and what is museum policy can and often do clash. Its super interesting. If you want relatively low resolution images of our collection, feel free to visit http://scrAPI.org http://scrAPI.org , which just scrapes our live site. Its a workaround until our policy changes. Roger, how was working for Getty while you were there? Was this your main project? How supportive where those involved in sharing the data? If hackernews isn't the most appropriate place to answer these questions, I'd be glad if you could take the time to go off-site for a conversation.