museumsandtheweb.com - Comments for "MW2010 Web Site. What changes would you like to see?"

we went for simplicity in a rights statement

jtrant — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:12:00 +0000

hi Frankie,

you're right, we could put different license / rights statements on each piece of content, and we've often done this with MW papers, where the illustrations are subject to particular rights. the Karsh photo credits from MW2009 are a good example at http://www.archimuse.com/mw2009/papers/mcevoy/mcevoy.html].

for the rights statement on the full site, we chose to use a CC license that would cover everything rather than an overly complicated fragmented approach. we don't want to imply rights we don't have. if people want additional uses, we're easy to find, and readily give permissions.

BTW we don't rely on CC for the Flickr photos, but asked individual permission for each. They're not all CC licensed and the conference isn't a non-commercial use, so our use wouldn't be covered by some of the CC licenses on the images. the link back to the photo page was one of the agreed terms.

now the thing we didn't negotiate -- and probably should have if we were really risk adverse -- was personality/publicity rights to use images of identifable people. you're ok with that, right? ;)

hope to see you in Denver, if not before!

jennifer

I don't want to be a

frankieroberto — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:28:00 +0000

I don't want to be a copyright bore, but you don't have to let the use of third-party content (like the Flickr photos) determine which CC licence you can use. It's probably better and easier to simply add a statement saying something like "Creative Commons licence applies to all text on this website, except where specified" - then you can allow the photos to be under various different licences, and also to specify the different attribution required.

In fact, you already kinda do this with the Flickr photos, as pages like this: http://www.archimuse.com/mw2009/images/credits.html specify the different copyright holder (although not the CC licence, which is a little naughty, but then people can click through to see the licence, so it's not so bad).

You may have other reasons to pick a CC-BY-NC-ND licence, of course, but the inclusion of third-party images shouldn't be the limiting factor (so long as you're not creating derivatives, which simply incluiding an image in a website doesn't count as).

Frankie

OK

Pepijn — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 14:58:00 +0000

Definitely sounds complicated, but does seem to make sense. Think I'll have to chew on this for a while to get it...

Thanx!
Pepijn.

a license requires copyright

jtrant — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 14:07:00 +0000

thanks for your comment.

While a CC license and a copyright statement might seem contradictory, the Creative Commons license actually relies on the fact that Archives & Museum Informatics has copyright in the licensed work: if we didn't own it, we couldn't allow people to use it.

But our 'ownership' is limited. For example the site includes works -- like your photo ;) -- for which we've negotiated permissions. So we've reserved all rights but those granted in a particular (CC) license.

We use a (CC) BY - NC - ND license that requires attribution, limits commercial use, and does not allow creation of derivative works.

BY (requiring attribution) - because authorship is important in scholarly circles, and acknowledging other's work is right, ethically

NC (non commercial) - because we have limited rights to use some materials, and can't necessarily grant commercial rights to re-use.

ND (no derivatives) - because we can't relicense works that we've licensed.

sounds complicated ... but we've used licenses in the past to help accomplish useful things, and they continue to be helpful tools.

make sense?

jennifer

j. trant archives & museum informatics www.archimuse.com

CC or copyright

Pepijn — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 12:53:00 +0000

Minor detail: at the bottom left of the site there is a Creative Commons license (which is great!). Directly to the right of that is a copyright notice stating 'Copyright © 2009 – Archives & Museum Informatics – All rights reserved.' This seems to contradict the CC license.

Grts,
Pepijn.

Video

kajsahartig — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:20:00 +0000

I think videorecording the main lectures, and posting them online would be great. It'd be a useful resource both for attendees and those who couldn't make it. I realise it might be difficult to cover many lectures, but perhaps a few?

Regards,
Kajsa