Hi -
I actually professionally consult with GLAMs (galleries, libraries,
archives and museums) regarding the copyright of their images and the
content within them and how copyright works. I have worked with everyone
from the Smithsonian Institution to the Getty regarding opening their
cultural
On 22 October 2014 17:17, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com wrote:
To be brutally honest: the university can claim copyright over the
photographs of those images all they want but they will lose that case in a
court of law if the photograph is of an object that was created before 1923.
The University does actually have a pretty good statement here:
http://uwdc.library.wisc.edu/about/copyright
The key issue would more likely be that some of the articles are still
under natural copyright, such as this one:
On 22 October 2014 17:38, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
The key issue would more likely be that some of the articles are still under
natural copyright, such as this one:
[mailto:gendergap-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Sarah Stierch
Sent: Thursday, 23 October 2014 2:18 AM
To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the
participationof women within Wikimedia projects.
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Fwd: fembot: Announcing a new pictorial digital
Fabulous collection of images, see below.
Most are public domain - meaning ripe for uploading to Commons :)
-- Forwarded message --
From: Carol Stabile carol.stab...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 4:11 PM
Subject: fembot: Announcing a new pictorial digital women's history
Maybe I am missing something (USA copyright law is not my area of expertise)
but I see recent photographs of old things, which would make the photos the
copyright of Dovie Horvitz (who is described as the person who took the
photos). If the copyright has been assigned to the university, the
