4 ms·
Wikimedia portrait case is about the future of museums, not the public domain
- ggchappell 17y agoThis is curious. The author is worried about the future of museums, due to the points in U.K. law under question. And yet, while he notes that the photographs would be considered public-domain in the U.S., there doesn't seem to be any worry about U.S. museums. Or those in other countries. Isn't that a bit odd? Now, is there a serious problem here? Maybe, maybe not. But the rather provincial viewpoint of this article doesn't help us answer the question.
- ZeroGravitas 17y agoI'm surprised by the amount of negative reaction the Wikipedia stance is getting, seems pretty sensible to me, not to mention ethically sound. This guy doesn't seem to have much of a point. He thinks this is a case of "tragedy of the commons" when really, since you can't use up a digital image by looking at it or duplicating it, it's really a case of Public Goods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good) and the problems they have. Why build a lighthouse if you can't charge people and exclude those who don't pay? Standard answer, get the government to do it and force people to pay via taxation. Since most of these museums are government funded already, problem solved. I also don't understand the reference to the Van Gogh (http://www.xconomy.com/national/2009/07/17/art-isnt-free-the-tragedy-of-the-wikimedia-commons/attachment/mfa-houses-at-auvers/ http://www.xconomy.com/national/2009/07/17/art-isnt-free-the...). It seems like US institutions are pulling the same kind of nonsense, even after a court ruling against it.