Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   

   Names Aren't Important, Aug 6th, 2009 @ 2:58pm

   
   

   Question: How much "digital" content has Smithsonian paid to create itself, versus images that were handed to them already shot, example?
   
   I think this is getting back to that question of the content of the image being public domain, but a newly shot image potentially being copyright. London's National Portrait Gallery paid to produce new images, did the Smithsonian do the same

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   So is it illegal to bing the internet now?

   

   Leon, Aug 6th, 2009 @ 3:08pm

   
   

   This is crazy bad. How will it get fixed? For example, if I want to go and shake the interwebs tree... oops, I meant bing the internet, and this link thing falls out, how do we know for sure that it will be in the public domain?
   
   http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=h9DBynJUCS4

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Aug 6th, 2009 @ 4:47pm

   
   

   Personally, if the US Gov wanted to bump my taxes by a couple tenths of % points so the Smithsonian could afford take ultra high def digital photos, and build 3d representations of its collection to be freely available to the public I'd be all for it. Go a bit further and add documentation on every item attached to each piece they photograph/scan.. and I'd be for that one too.
   
   At the very least its a true public service. Something our government keeps missing the point on repeatedly lately.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   Re:

   

   Anonymous Coward, Aug 6th, 2009 @ 4:52pm

   
   

   Funny enough, those images would be copyright to the Smithsonian. Amazing, isn't it?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   Re: "so the Smithsonian could afford to take ultra high def photos.."

   

   Tek'a R (profile), Aug 6th, 2009 @ 6:10pm

   
   

   Funny enough, there should not be a need for too much of this. As a way to make supplemental profits, the Smithsonian already takes "ultra high def digital photos" of their works for various prints, posters, teeshirts mugs and everything else in the world.
   
   These actions should be already paying for themselves. The thing that has been lacking has been a way to properly open up these images and scans to the public, in a format that properly expresses that it is, in fact, for open domain use.
   
   
   (along with making sure there is no claim to the work done by photographers or anyone else who would claim to control a piece because they held a lamp to light a shoot)
   
   "Establish a pan-Institutional policy for sharing and using the Smithsonian’s digital content". In other words, the content is there, the hurdle is Doing something with it.
   
   Bravo Smithsonian.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   Re: Re:Government

   

   Anonymous Coward, Aug 6th, 2009 @ 9:34pm

   
   

   The Smithsonian is government and publicly funded. Copyright cannot be claimed on government work because work performed is done as a service to the public- supposedly...
   
   In general if you are working for the government the public has full rights to anything you produce unless there is a reason to lock it down for national security or similar reasons. Any FOIA request should grant rights to publicly funded materials...

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   

   Frosty840, Aug 7th, 2009 @ 3:49am

   
   

   With the caveat that I'm not absolutely sure of my facts, here, I have to admit a certain amount of sympathy with the National Gallery here, in that the images that have been released are (as I understand it) of sufficiently high quality to be used for commercial purposes along the lines of:
   "Hey, did you want to use a picture of this artwork in some advertising? Well, we've already photographed everything in the museum, so there's no need for you to go to the time and effort of producing your own photos. Here's a non-commercial-resolution version of the image in question, what do you think?"
   
   I agree that lower-resolution versions of the photos should absolutely be public domain, but had this action been taken against some independent photog, working out of a stock images site, people would be up in arms in defense of the photog. I see the two cases as similar enough that the lack of sympathy for the museum rankles me somewhat.
   
   Again, not totally sure of my facts here, if someone can prove me wrong, I'll hop straight over to the other side of the argument.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   Re:

   

   Travis, Aug 7th, 2009 @ 8:41am

   
   

   If the Smithsonian pays to have the pictures taken then they should be public domain. The Smithsonian is owned by the US government and is funded by taxes and donations. All item created by the museum belong to the american people. (I believe thats actually in their charter, but don't know for sure.)

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   Hmm..

   

   Overtkill (profile), Aug 8th, 2009 @ 3:12pm

   
   

   Forward thinking is where you find it. The Smithsonian's view on this issue would greatly encourage *gasp* public education... :)

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment