You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Contemplation on Beauty
Thank you for your insightful feedback. I thought I had the accredition pretty much covered. Let me know if you spot anything specifically insufficient.
Thank you for your insightful feedback. I thought I had the accredition pretty much covered. Let me know if you spot anything specifically insufficient.
it isnt that you have accredited, you did a super job on that. i'm just not sure all of the sources were free to use. anything that has copyright must have the authors explicit permission unless it is stated otherwise. I spose its confusing here. sorry i was also looking at some other posts where it might be a concern.
You are quite right to be finnicky! I support you in that. As far as I have been informed wikipedia is open source but sometimes a specific reference is required. And it remains a nightmare to trace back pinterest postings which frequently come up in google for works of art. Some say paintings in museums are in the public domain - but you would be right to note that somebody took the photo (if it wasn't you yourself), which makes them the owner of that reproduction. Then it gets complicated. However, if you scan in a picture postcard from a museum shop, what more can you do than reference the museum? Tricky terrain. You are doing a great job to raise awareness. Keep up the good work.
a photo of art from a magazine article, which is copyright noted to a writer and photographer, is not open source. this is where you should be very careful.
also, art from a living artist may very well have copyright status.
Phew, doesn't apply here then.