The Getty Makes 88,000 Art Images Free to Use However You Like
March 9, 2024 1:00 PM Subscribe
The Getty museum has released a huge trove of images under a CC0 license (essentially waiving copyright). Images can be downloaded in high resolution.
The collection can be filtered by a number of facets. For example, here is a collection of amazing lettering work by Joris Hoefnagel.
More on this from Open Culture
The collection can be filtered by a number of facets. For example, here is a collection of amazing lettering work by Joris Hoefnagel.
More on this from Open Culture
Excellent.
posted by doctornemo at 2:44 PM on March 9
posted by doctornemo at 2:44 PM on March 9
YAY! I am always so delighted when art becomes more widely accessible.
Thank you so much for posting this, adamrice!
YAY!
posted by kristi at 3:26 PM on March 9 [1 favorite]
Thank you so much for posting this, adamrice!
YAY!
posted by kristi at 3:26 PM on March 9 [1 favorite]
Clicked on a stereogram on the first page, then the (Stereogram) tag, then saw this highly racist entry entitled:"Georgia Plantation Scenes [Black Angels]". Three clicks in. How does any of this not end up in generative AI?
posted by achrise at 4:23 PM on March 9 [1 favorite]
posted by achrise at 4:23 PM on March 9 [1 favorite]
Oh lovely. Living in LA, I've had the pleasure of going to the Getty many times. One of my favorite lesser-known spots is in the North pavilion, where they have the most incredible collection of glass objects, hundreds or even thousands of years old. They're so beautiful and it's crazy to think that they ever survived unbroken!
posted by BlahLaLa at 5:19 PM on March 9 [4 favorites]
posted by BlahLaLa at 5:19 PM on March 9 [4 favorites]
All of the above linked examples were public domain anyway, being pre-1928. Getty otherwise almost certainly wouldn't own the rights to them even if they owned the originals, and thus couldn't release them into the public domain. Maybe there are some photos of old sculptures that they could have chosen not to release?
Very weird framing on this.
posted by novalis_dt at 5:22 PM on March 9 [5 favorites]
Very weird framing on this.
posted by novalis_dt at 5:22 PM on March 9 [5 favorites]
→
Yes, but what the Getty has done is take exquisite pictures of them, supply them with metadata and provide them for free download. That's the good part.
I like "A Sloth".
posted by scruss at 6:10 PM on March 9 [21 favorites]
All of the above linked examples were public domain anyway, being pre-1928
Yes, but what the Getty has done is take exquisite pictures of them, supply them with metadata and provide them for free download. That's the good part.
I like "A Sloth".
posted by scruss at 6:10 PM on March 9 [21 favorites]
Maybe there are some photos of old sculptures that they could have chosen not to release?
My understanding is that a lot of the stuff wasn't available for public view at Getty and that they could own their own high resolution scan/version of the digital image (and supplement it with really really good metadata... on preview, jinx scruss). They were choosing not to, that's why they framed it this way. Sure, it's a little breathless and does gloss over some of the nuances of how copyright of artwork works generally, but I'm personally okay with it.
The way a lot of organizations handle this sort of thing (even with public domain artworks) is that they allow you to download a low-res version but they'll sell you a print of the high-res version. Getty chose to do something different.
posted by jessamyn at 6:12 PM on March 9 [10 favorites]
My understanding is that a lot of the stuff wasn't available for public view at Getty and that they could own their own high resolution scan/version of the digital image (and supplement it with really really good metadata... on preview, jinx scruss). They were choosing not to, that's why they framed it this way. Sure, it's a little breathless and does gloss over some of the nuances of how copyright of artwork works generally, but I'm personally okay with it.
The way a lot of organizations handle this sort of thing (even with public domain artworks) is that they allow you to download a low-res version but they'll sell you a print of the high-res version. Getty chose to do something different.
posted by jessamyn at 6:12 PM on March 9 [10 favorites]
I am not convinced by the idea that a more perfect copy of something provides more copyright protection. But in any case, if the Getty owns the paintings, they could use thier physical control of the paintings to stop new high resolution copies from being made, so good on them for not.
posted by surlyben at 8:36 PM on March 9
posted by surlyben at 8:36 PM on March 9
is a torrent file of all of these images available, or is there some other way to just nab them all at once? Asking for a hoarding friend…
posted by bakerybob at 12:42 AM on March 10 [1 favorite]
posted by bakerybob at 12:42 AM on March 10 [1 favorite]
This is amazing!
The Internet being the Internet, has anyone built a reliable index for all similar museum-makes-things-public-domain initiatives? I know I've seen several (I've posted one or two!) and it'd be great to have a place to hop around all of them.
posted by Shepherd at 4:01 AM on March 10 [3 favorites]
The Internet being the Internet, has anyone built a reliable index for all similar museum-makes-things-public-domain initiatives? I know I've seen several (I've posted one or two!) and it'd be great to have a place to hop around all of them.
posted by Shepherd at 4:01 AM on March 10 [3 favorites]
Yeah, as somebody who works in cultural heritage, I think it’s a principle worth fighting for that Getty did not hold copyright in photos of 2D public domain works in its collections, and that museums in the US (and now the UK) who claim they do are committing copyfraud, but nevertheless this project is good and they should feel good.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 8:22 AM on March 10 [4 favorites]
posted by Horace Rumpole at 8:22 AM on March 10 [4 favorites]
Beyond the Sloth, the rest of Joris Hoefnagel's stuff is pretty great!
posted by BrashTech at 11:59 AM on March 10 [1 favorite]
posted by BrashTech at 11:59 AM on March 10 [1 favorite]
saw this highly racist entry entitled:"Georgia Plantation Scenes [Black Angels]".
I may be missing some sort of joke, but I’m not seeing what’s “highly racist” about an 1870 photograph of two black boys, unless you’re referring to the slur alongside “cherub.”
William M. Chase had a well documented history of championing equality for both women and black Americans, in a time when that was largely unheard of even among the most progressive.
posted by Molten Berle at 9:36 AM on March 11 [4 favorites]
I may be missing some sort of joke, but I’m not seeing what’s “highly racist” about an 1870 photograph of two black boys, unless you’re referring to the slur alongside “cherub.”
William M. Chase had a well documented history of championing equality for both women and black Americans, in a time when that was largely unheard of even among the most progressive.
posted by Molten Berle at 9:36 AM on March 11 [4 favorites]
Mod note: [btw, this post has been added to the sidebar and Best Of blog!]
posted by taz (staff) at 3:08 AM on March 12 [1 favorite]
posted by taz (staff) at 3:08 AM on March 12 [1 favorite]
« Older Serena is an amazing, one-of-a-kind cat! | Koalas sighted in areas where they were thought to... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by jessamyn at 2:35 PM on March 9 [5 favorites]