"no copyright restrictions" - LSE Library & flickr

[Caroline Ford-2]

Hi

With some fanfare the LSE library have added some images from their collection to flickr commons. As per the rules of flickr commons these are listed as "no copyright restrictions". If you click on the LSE's interpretation of "no copyright restrictions" they link to a very non-free, personal, non-commercial licence.

Flickr's understanding of no copyright restrictions: http://www.flickr.com/commons/usage/

BY ASSERTING "NO KNOWN COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS," PARTICIPATING INSTITUTIONS ARE SHARING THE BENEFIT OF THEIR RESEARCH WITHOUT PROVIDING AN EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WARRANTY TO OTHERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO USE OR REPRODUCE THE PHOTOGRAPH. IF YOU MAKE USE OF A PHOTO FROM THE COMMONS, YOU ARE REMINDED TO CONDUCT AN INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS OF APPLICABLE LAW BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH A PARTICULAR NEW USE.

The LSE Library's understanding of no copyright restrictions: http://www2.lse.ac.uk/library/archive/flickr_rights_statement.aspx

"The images published on our Flickr Commons photostream are all marked as having ‘no known copyright restrictions’ attached to them. This means that we are unaware of any current copyright restrictions for displaying this selection of photographs from our collection within the Flickr website, either because LSE owns the copyright, or the term of copyright has expired, or because no evidence has been found that copyright restrictions apply.

The images on our photostream are meant to be used for personal, educational or research purposes. To obtain high quality digital copies, or to find out more about copyright terms for the reproduction of specific works in our collection, please contact the Library's Archives and Rare Books Division. Please note that it is our policy to charge licensing fees for commercial use. "

I've complained here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lselibrary/3274389894/

The LSE replied:
Just to clarify on the copyright point. Copyright in ‘No known copyright restrictions’ refers to the rights of the photographer. In the case of all the images we have put on Flickr as far as we have been able to establish copyright has either expired or belongs to LSE. Licensing is different, this applies to permission to reproduce images. We have placed these images under a ‘non-commercial licence’ which means that they can be used freely for personal and academic use. Charges only apply if someone wanted to use the images for commercial publications when we would have to supply higher resolution images. This is standard practice for commercial publications. Flickr Commons has a code of practice dictating what can be displayed on the site and LSE adheres to this in all respects.

Can they really claim copyright and licensing are different like this?

I know library thing had people upload images from this collection believing "no copyright restrictions" meant PD. I expect some will end up on Commons too.

Caroline

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@...
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

[David Gerard-2]

2009/11/4 Caroline Ford <caroline.ford.work@...>:

> Can they really claim copyright and licensing are different like this?


It strikes me as complete bollocks.

Mind you, when an institution makes bollocks claims like this, the
likely best course of action would be for a GLAM diplomacy specialist
to have a quiet word with them and see what can be done ... but if
images end up on Commons and are OK from a copyright perspective per
our rules, then they'll likely stick. I'm not sure any GLAM wants to
be the next NPG.


- d.

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@...
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

[Geoffrey Plourde]

Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy.

You need to take it up with the flickr admins.

---

From: Caroline Ford <caroline.ford.work@...>
To: commons-l@...
Sent: Wed, November 4, 2009 3:30:08 PM
Subject: [Commons-l] "no copyright restrictions" - LSE Library & flickr

Hi

With some fanfare the LSE library have added some images from their collection to flickr commons. As per the rules of flickr commons these are listed as "no copyright restrictions". If you click on the LSE's interpretation of "no copyright restrictions" they link to a very non-free, personal, non-commercial licence.

Flickr's understanding of no copyright restrictions: http://www.flickr.com/commons/usage/

BY ASSERTING "NO KNOWN COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS," PARTICIPATING INSTITUTIONS ARE SHARING THE BENEFIT OF THEIR RESEARCH WITHOUT PROVIDING AN EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WARRANTY TO OTHERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO USE OR REPRODUCE THE PHOTOGRAPH. IF YOU MAKE USE OF A PHOTO FROM THE COMMONS, YOU ARE REMINDED TO CONDUCT AN INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS OF APPLICABLE LAW BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH A PARTICULAR NEW USE.

The LSE Library's understanding of no copyright restrictions: http://www2.lse.ac.uk/library/archive/flickr_rights_statement.aspx

"The images published on our Flickr Commons photostream are all marked as having ‘no known copyright restrictions’ attached to them. This means that we are unaware of any current copyright restrictions for displaying this selection of photographs from our collection within the Flickr website, either because LSE owns the copyright, or the term of copyright has expired, or because no evidence has been found that copyright restrictions apply.

The images on our photostream are meant to be used for personal, educational or research purposes. To obtain high quality digital copies, or to find out more about copyright terms for the reproduction of specific works in our collection, please contact the Library's Archives and Rare Books Division. Please note that it is our policy to charge licensing fees for commercial use. "

I've complained here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lselibrary/3274389894/

The LSE replied:
Just to clarify on the copyright point. Copyright in ‘No known copyright restrictions’ refers to the rights of the photographer. In the case of all the images we have put on Flickr as far as we have been able to establish copyright has either expired or belongs to LSE. Licensing is different, this applies to permission to reproduce images. We have placed these images under a ‘non-commercial licence’ which means that they can be used freely for personal and academic use. Charges only apply if someone wanted to use the images for commercial publications when we would have to supply higher resolution images. This is standard practice for commercial publications. Flickr Commons has a code of practice dictating what can be displayed on the site and LSE adheres to this in all respects.

Can they really claim copyright and licensing are different like this?

I know library thing had people upload images from this collection believing "no copyright restrictions" meant PD. I expect some will end up on Commons too.

Caroline

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@...
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

[Gnangarra]

Presuming that the image doesnt have author details then http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-UK-unknown could be applied so images prior to 1/jan/1939 are pd, if the author is known http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-UK-known applies and its the same date, only engraving are different

2009/11/5 Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd@...>

You need to take it up with the flickr admins.

---

From: Caroline Ford <caroline.ford.work@...>
To: commons-l@...
Sent: Wed, November 4, 2009 3:30:08 PM
Subject: [Commons-l] "no copyright restrictions" - LSE Library & flickr

Hi

With some fanfare the LSE library have added some images from their collection to flickr commons. As per the rules of flickr commons these are listed as "no copyright restrictions". If you click on the LSE's interpretation of "no copyright restrictions" they link to a very non-free, personal, non-commercial licence.

Flickr's understanding of no copyright restrictions: http://www.flickr.com/commons/usage/

BY ASSERTING "NO KNOWN COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS," PARTICIPATING INSTITUTIONS ARE SHARING THE BENEFIT OF THEIR RESEARCH WITHOUT PROVIDING AN EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WARRANTY TO OTHERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO USE OR REPRODUCE THE PHOTOGRAPH. IF YOU MAKE USE OF A PHOTO FROM THE COMMONS, YOU ARE REMINDED TO CONDUCT AN INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS OF APPLICABLE LAW BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH A PARTICULAR NEW USE.

The LSE Library's understanding of no copyright restrictions: http://www2.lse.ac.uk/library/archive/flickr_rights_statement.aspx

"The images published on our Flickr Commons photostream are all marked as having ‘no known copyright restrictions’ attached to them. This means that we are unaware of any current copyright restrictions for displaying this selection of photographs from our collection within the Flickr website, either because LSE owns the copyright, or the term of copyright has expired, or because no evidence has been found that copyright restrictions apply.

The images on our photostream are meant to be used for personal, educational or research purposes. To obtain high quality digital copies, or to find out more about copyright terms for the reproduction of specific works in our collection, please contact the Library's Archives and Rare Books Division. Please note that it is our policy to charge licensing fees for commercial use. "

I've complained here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lselibrary/3274389894/

The LSE replied:
Just to clarify on the copyright point. Copyright in ‘No known copyright restrictions’ refers to the rights of the photographer. In the case of all the images we have put on Flickr as far as we have been able to establish copyright has either expired or belongs to LSE. Licensing is different, this applies to permission to reproduce images. We have placed these images under a ‘non-commercial licence’ which means that they can be used freely for personal and academic use. Charges only apply if someone wanted to use the images for commercial publications when we would have to supply higher resolution images. This is standard practice for commercial publications. Flickr Commons has a code of practice dictating what can be displayed on the site and LSE adheres to this in all respects.

Can they really claim copyright and licensing are different like this?

I know library thing had people upload images from this collection believing "no copyright restrictions" meant PD. I expect some will end up on Commons too.

Caroline

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@...
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

--
GN.
http://gnangarra.redbubble.com/

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@...
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

[Brion Vibber]

On 11/5/09 12:36 AM, David Gerard wrote:

> 2009/11/4 Caroline Ford<caroline.ford.work@...>:
>
>> Can they really claim copyright and licensing are different like this?
>
>
> It strikes me as complete bollocks.
>
> Mind you, when an institution makes bollocks claims like this, the
> likely best course of action would be for a GLAM diplomacy specialist
> to have a quiet word with them and see what can be done ... but if
> images end up on Commons and are OK from a copyright perspective per
> our rules, then they'll likely stick. I'm not sure any GLAM wants to
> be the next NPG.

Their claims are also very vague; the only that they explicitly claim is
that if you want to *get* a high-resolution version to use commercially
they will happily take your money in exchange.

They don't actually _say_ that they can charge you for using the
available online files commercially, and seem to be carefully
sidestepping it. :)

-- brion


_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@...
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

[Brion Vibber]

On 11/7/09 5:35 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
> Their claims are also very vague; the only that they explicitly claim is
> that if you want to *get* a high-resolution version to use commercially
> they will happily take your money in exchange.
>
> They don't actually _say_ that they can charge you for using the
> available online files commercially, and seem to be carefully
> sidestepping it. :)

[Note that their images on flickr commons seem to be circa 600x900 --
around a half megapixel.]

-- brion


_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@...
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l