Hacker News Reader

Comment by Angostura | Hacker News Reader

Not really, the copyright on the photograph will always belong to the photographer. The image is available under creative commons for non-commercial use, which seems fair enough.

View on HN

Sadly, the images for non-commercial use appear to be restricted to a medium resolution with high JPEG compression artifacts [1].

As an example I downloaded the image https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/image/1613717051 (~1 MB, 2500x1973).

Still good enough for many use cases, but it limits personal prints.

[1] https://www.britishmuseum.org/terms-use/copyright-and-permis...

Not necessarily. There has to be a “a significant expenditure of labour”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow#United_Kingd...

In the Us at least that was decided based on the photographer having creative input on composition, etc. A pure scan of someone's artwork I don't think qualifies here.

Some other countries have more of a laboriousness based theory though.

To be clear, you're saying that a public institution [1] who's charter is to provide access to artifacts that would otherwise normally be in the public domain and who's funding comes from donations and tax dollars should be expected to then copyright it's material when providing it digitally to the public?

Further, you're saying that artifacts plundered from colonialist rule should then be restricted to the people they've plundered from under restrictive licensing terms?

[1] https://www.britishmuseum.org/about-us/governance

you're saying that artifacts plundered from colonialist rule

Here we go...

ps. both my shallow dismissal and your OT flamebait are discouraged here, so let's call it even and move on

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> should be expected to then copyright it's material when providing it digitally to the public?

I'm saying they have the copyright.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com