background preloader

<i><b>Metropolitan Museum Initiative Provides Free Access to 400,000 Digital Images</i></b>

New Web Program Allows Free Image Download for Non-Commercial Use (New York, May 16, 2014)—Thomas P. Campbell, Director and CEO of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, announced today that more than 400,000 high-resolution digital images of public domain works in the Museum’s world-renowned collection may be downloaded directly from the Museum’s website for non-commercial use—including in scholarly publications in any media—without permission from the Museum and without a fee. The number of available images will increase as new digital files are added on a regular basis. In making the announcement, Mr. The Metropolitan Museum’s initiative—called Open Access for Scholarly Content (OASC)—provides access to images of art in its collection that the Museum believes to be in the public domain and free of other known restrictions; these images are now available for scholarly use in any media.

Open Content Program (The Getty) The Getty makes available, without charge, all available digital images to which the Getty holds the rights or that are in the public domain to be used for any purpose. No permission is required. For additional information please see the related press releases, as well as overviews of each phase of the program on The Getty Iris. Why Open Content? What's in Open Content? Access to Open Content Images All of the images can be found on Getty Search Gateway, and the J. Open content images are identified with a "Download" link. If you need new photography, resizing, or color correction, you can request these services by contacting Museum Rights & Reproductions (for J. Public Domain and Rights Open content images are digital surrogates of works of art that are in the Getty's collections and in the public domain, for which we hold all rights, or for which we are not aware of any rights restrictions. Attribution to the Getty Please use the following source credit when reproducing an image:

Metropolitan Museum Of Art Claims Copyright Over Massive Trove Of Public Domain Works All too often we seem to see people making copyright claims over public domain works. It's especially egregious when we see museums do this kind of thing, as happens every so often. While museums in some other countries like to try to claim that they can create a new copyright on the digital scan of a public domain image, in the US it is generally considered settled law that museums cannot create such a new copyright. Thus, while it's exciting to see that the famed Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York has released a treasure trove of high-res images of public domain works for people to search and download, it's ridiculous and depressing that they're effectively claiming copyright over them, even while stating the images are in the public domain. If you can't read that, it says: Images of Works of Art that are in the Public Domain. Except that's not true. You would hope that the folks at a museum like the Met would actually understand the basics of copyright like this.

Must You Pay to Use Photos of Public Domain Artworks? No, Says a Legal Expert | Bernard Starr I recently completed a book that includes photos of Medieval and Renaissance artworks. Although the paintings are out of copyright and in the public domain, I was dismayed to discover that the museums that own these paintings charge hefty licensing fees to use their photos of these works. Then, lo and behold, I stumbled upon an article about a court decision that so-called "slavish" photos of public domain paintings, which are faithful reproductions of the originals, cannot be copyrighted and are therefore in the public domain as well. According to a landmark 1999 federal district court ruling, The Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd., Plaintiff v. Despite this court decision, museums, other institutions, and even individual photographers still claim or imply that their "slavish" mere reproductions of photographic images of public domain artworks are copyrighted and that therefore they can demand fees for licensing and use. Sprigman: Yes. Sprigman: I haven't seen these other photos.

Metropolitan Museum Launches Expanded, Redesigned Website, Providing Unprecedented Access to Collections, Programs, Research, and Visitor Information New Features Include Gallery Overviews, Interactive Floor Plan, and Suggested Itineraries for Planning Museum Visits (New York, September 26, 2011)—The Metropolitan Museum of Art has relaunched its website,, it was announced today by Thomas P. Campbell, Director and CEO of the Museum. Key features of the expanded and redesigned site include comprehensive access to more than 340,000 works of art in the Museum’s encyclopedic collections; extensive information and multimedia features on exhibitions, programs, and galleries; a completely new and streamlined design for greater ease of viewing the vast array of images, resources, and other material now online; and an interactive floor plan and multiple itineraries to enhance in-person visits to the Museum. The new website, which has been in preparation for three years, originally launched in 1996 and has not been thoroughly updated since 2000. Mr. New general features of include:

Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter This project page in other languages: Shortcut: COM:CB This page brings together a variety of subjects and aims to answer the question "Do copyright laws allow the upload of pictures of […]?". It is OK to upload: Generally, photos you have taken yourself of uncopyrightable subjects such as views, nature, yourself (as long as you don't use this as your private web space), people who have given their consent for you to photograph them and for you to publish the photograph.Photos taken by you or scans or photocopies made by you of objects or designs whose copyright has expired (usually 70 years after the death of the author, but see Commons:Copyright rules by territory for a country-by-country list).Mere mechanical scans or photocopies, made by somebody else, of an object or design old enough to be in the public domain (usually 70 years after the death of the author, but see Commons:Copyright rules by territory for a country-by-country list). Advertisements[edit] Album covers[edit] See also: 1.

Rijksstudio: Make Your Own Masterpiece! Peter Gorgels, The Netherlands Abstract In anticipation of its reopening on April 13, 2013, the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam launched Rijksstudio, the new online presentation of 125,000 works in the collection. Rijksstudio invites members of the public to create their own masterpieces by downloading images of artworks or details of artworks in the collection and using them in a creative way. The ultra high-resolution images of works, both famous and less well-known, can be freely downloaded, zoomed in on, shared, added to personal ‘studios’, or manipulated copyright-free. Users can have prints made of entire works of art or details from them. Keywords: collections; image culture; user generated content; responsive design; deep zoom technology; online / offline campaign 1. The main building of the Rijksmuseum will reopen on April 13, 2013, following a major renovation. Figure 1: Tattoo by Droog, based on the 17th century painting Still Life with Flowers by Jan Davidsz. de Heem 2. 3. 4. Close to

Museum 2.0: Museum Photo Policies Should Be as Open as Possible I'm working on a section of my book about sharing social objects and am writing about the most common way that visitors share their object experiences in museums: through photographs. While doing research, I found myself digging back into old arguments on museum listservs about photo policies and I want to add my two (very opinionated) cents on this. While the majority of experience-based museums like children's and science museums have unrestricted noncommercial photography policies, many collections-based art and history museums continue to maintain highly restrictive photo policies. As I understand it, there are five main arguments for restrictive policies: Intellectual Property: Museums must respect diverse intellectual property agreements with donors and lenders, and in institutions where some objects are photographable and others not, it's often easier to use the most restrictive agreements as the basis for institutional policies. "So what is spreadable media good for?

Center for the Future of Museums: Opportunities and Challenges with Reproductions As I travel the country talking to museumers, one of the most frequently asked questions is "in the future, will people still value ‘real’ things?" People wonder, naturally enough, whether constant exposure to virtual worlds, digital depictions and ever more accurate replicas will erode the respect accorded to the collections we work so hard to amass and maintain. Why should people subsidize collections care and conservation if they are just as happy with a good copy? If, in the future, anyone can fabricate a good facsimile of any object, what happens to the competitive advantage museums hold in being able to mount only-see-it-here exhibitions? This week, Jasper Visser, who blogs at The Museum of the Future, shares his thoughts on the repro v. real based on his recent experience opening an exhibit at the Beurs van Berlage in Amsterdam. This weekend in Amsterdam we opened an exhibition around the works of the famous Dutch painter Vincent van Gogh, Van Gogh, My Dream Exhibition.

Museums can get copyright right - Scholarly Communications @ Duke One type of question that I get over and over again from faculty and graduate students involves copyright and images of art works held in museums. In fact, question is probably the wrong name for these discussions; mostly I try to be sympathetic as the researcher bemoans the thicket of claims and permission costs in which they have become entangled as they undertake some project. I recently met with one faculty member who is creating an amazing “digital humanities” project and needs to obtain, from a significant number of different museums, high-res images of works that are clearly in the public domain. Then I saw this article about the Rijsmuseum in Amsterdam, which reminded me that even in Pandora’s box, hope remained in the bottom — some museums are bucking the trend and creating reuse-friendly policies for images of public domain works. Which brings me to the Rijsmuseum.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie Leonardo Description:Leonardo was founded in 1968 with the goal of becoming an international channel of communication for artists who use science and developing technologies in their work. Today, Leonardo is the leading international journal for readers interested in the application of contemporary science and technology to the arts and music. The benefits of a Leonardo subscription are manifold. A subscription to Leonardo includes Leonardo Music Journal, ISSN 0961-1215 (including compact disc), featuring the latest in music, multimedia art, sound science and technology. In addition Leonardo subscribers become members of Leonardo/ISAST (the International Society for the Arts, Sciences and Technology) and receive reduced rates on all Society publications.

Cultural Heritage and Open Data: a possible key? : Digital meets Culture : «A museum is a non-profit, permanent institution in the service of society and its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its environment for the purposes of education, study and enjoyment». So the International Council of Museums has defined the museum since 1986, highlighting the importance of preservation and communication with the public aimed at different objectives. Today, museums are more and more following this path showing the works, opening virtual galleries to the public and sharing their databases with users. This is exactly the philosophy of the OpenData, «data available for free use, reuse and redistribution only limited by the author's request for attribution and for redistribution in the same way (that is without variations) » (FormezPA, 2011). What is the international and national best practice arising from this new awareness? Sources P.

The Public Domain vs. the Museum: The Limits of Copyright and Reproductions of Two-dimensional Works of Art 1. Case studies 1.1 National Portrait Gallery (UK) v. Wikimedia Commons The National Portrait Gallery in London (NPG) was founded in 1856. It is not an art museum as such, but focuses on collecting portraits of historically important people. In 2009, Derrick Coetzee, a graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley, wrote a script that downloaded the image tiles of more than 3,000 images from the National Portrait Gallery’s website and re-assembled them into complete, high-resolution images, which he then uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons repository on the Internet. The matter never reached the courts, and the dispute was never properly settled. 1.2 Bridgeman v. In 1998 and 1999, a District Court in the US state of New York decided the case of Bridgeman Art Library, LTD. v. While the details of the case and its rulings are intriguing in themselves, only parts are of interest here. ‘Take the simplest case of artistic copyright, a painting or a photograph. 2. 2.7 Conclusion 3.