What I'd like to see institutions like the British Library the British Museum and other public museums changing is their policy on reproductions of out-of-copyright images. Currently, they claim copyright on reproductions of such images (ie, they claim that the act of scanning an old painting is a creative work, and that the photograph is protected by copyright, even if the original painting is long out of copyright). They use this copyright claim to place extortionate costs on publication of images of their collection.
This is somewhat suspect legally, but who has the lawyers to challenge them? Only creative works are meant to be covered by copyright. Where's the creative act in putting a painting into a reproduction system and pressing a button? The National Gallery even prides itself on how accurate a reproduction the copied images you can purchase from their website are, showing that there's no creative step here.
For example, according to http://www.bl.uk/imaging/pdf/permissionsfees20067. pdf it would cost me 102 pounds to buy a license to put a copy of a single one of their digital images on a website for 6 months, even if that website were a non-commercial website supplying, say, educational resources and lesson plan ideas for schools. The digital image they've made should not be covered by copyright, and should be able to be used without restriction. (It would be fair enough to charge a small fee to go towards the initial bandwidth cost and scanning cost, but don't forget that this is a public organisation which should be using some of its funding from the tax payers to allow British citizens who don't happen to live in London as much access to their collection as possible.) Once you have a copy of the digital image of an out-of-copyright painting, you should be able to do whatever you like with it.
While I welcome the copyright statement the British Library has made here, it should stop trying to abuse copyright in this manner before we salute it as a guardian of our rights.
Slashdot Mirror
What I'd like to see institutions like the British Library the British Museum and other public museums changing is their policy on reproductions of out-of-copyright images.
. pdf it would cost me 102 pounds to buy a license to put a copy of a single one of their digital images on a website for 6 months, even if that website were a non-commercial website supplying, say, educational resources and lesson plan ideas for schools. The digital image they've made should not be covered by copyright, and should be able to be used without restriction. (It would be fair enough to charge a small fee to go towards the initial bandwidth cost and scanning cost, but don't forget that this is a public organisation which should be using some of its funding from the tax payers to allow British citizens who don't happen to live in London as much access to their collection as possible.) Once you have a copy of the digital image of an out-of-copyright painting, you should be able to do whatever you like with it.
Currently, they claim copyright on reproductions of such images (ie, they claim that the act of scanning an old painting is a creative work, and that the photograph is protected by copyright, even if the original painting is long out of copyright). They use this copyright claim to place extortionate costs on publication of images of their collection.
This is somewhat suspect legally, but who has the lawyers to challenge them? Only creative works are meant to be covered by copyright. Where's the creative act in putting a painting into a reproduction system and pressing a button? The National Gallery even prides itself on how accurate a reproduction the copied images you can purchase from their website are, showing that there's no creative step here.
For example, according to http://www.bl.uk/imaging/pdf/permissionsfees20067
While I welcome the copyright statement the British Library has made here, it should stop trying to abuse copyright in this manner before we salute it as a guardian of our rights.