LACMA Collection
March 14, 2013 12:57 PM   Subscribe

The Collections of the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Of the 80,000 or so pieces of art on display online, around 20,000 will now have high resolution versions available for download.

The new site also features more search viewpoints, though so far no filter for works with downloadable images.
posted by kmz (14 comments total) 25 users marked this as a favorite
 
Something tells me I won't be able to download the (lamentably, no longer on display) Central Meridian.
posted by anazgnos at 1:18 PM on March 14, 2013


The first 12 pieces I visited had no download link. Could they be filtered out non-USA users?
posted by Theta States at 1:23 PM on March 14, 2013


I'm in the USA; they don't have the download links here either.

Bit of a failure in their launch plans, that.
posted by fifthrider at 1:27 PM on March 14, 2013


It' s not all of them -- "just" the 20,000 in they "believe to be in the public domain." I've seen quite a few with the download link; those that don't have the order photography link instead.

Unless I'm special.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 1:30 PM on March 14, 2013


If you want to find downloadable art, select the filter that says "Show only results with unrestricted images." You have to have begun searching, by the way, to get that option; it's not on the front page.
posted by yoink at 1:39 PM on March 14, 2013 [2 favorites]


This is good. Because LACMA could slide into the tar pits without any notice.
posted by Danf at 1:40 PM on March 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


It's kind of incredible to me that Ed Ruscha's Los Angeles County Museum on Fire not in LACMA's collection (it's in the Smithsonian's).
posted by troika at 2:39 PM on March 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


Related: MeFi darling Stanley Kubrick is being featured in a special exhibit at LACMA right now, which I hear us terrific. Good reason to stop by, says me.
posted by ShutterBun at 3:02 PM on March 14, 2013


1Mb jpegs at about 2Mpixels is not really high resolution.
posted by charlie don't surf at 4:24 PM on March 14, 2013 [1 favorite]


Their terms of use are about as clear as mud. Let's take one photograph, for example, a picture of a "Censer Depicting Tlaloc". Is this a freely accessible public domain photograph, or is it restricted by copyright. The terms of use say that the photograph will be marked by "Public Domain High Resolution Image Available". I found this photograph by checking the checkbox "Show only results with unrestricted images" on their advanced search. However the photograph is not marked with the magic words listed in the terms of use. So is it or isn't it?

If you do this search, then click through the to the one Maya vase shown, it says at the bottom that "Rollout photograph © Justin Kerr, File # K531", however, the photo is not a rollout. This would be the rollout. I am friends with Justin, and I know that none of his rollouts are in the public domain, but it is completely unclear whether this photo was taken by him and if it is in the public domain or not.

They need to do a much better job of identifying what is public domain and what is still under copyright. So little content is moving into the public domain any more, that when something does it is a remarkable and notable event.
posted by Xoc at 5:06 PM on March 14, 2013


Xoc, I think they're just going by death of the artist plus 70 rule. I noticed there are no unrestricted images in the Modern Art collection, because most of the artists are too recent to be Public Domain.

You are mistaken about your friend Justin's photographs, they are in the public domain due to Bridgeman vs. Corel. No photograph of a Public Domain work can re-attach copyright. But unfortunately, institutions are afraid to release PD works online due to copyfrauds that assert invalid rights like this.
posted by charlie don't surf at 5:31 PM on March 14, 2013


Big Rock is another reason to stop by.
posted by notyou at 5:52 PM on March 14, 2013


IANAL, but Bridgeman v. Corel is not binding on anywhere except southern New York and possibly the 10th Circuit. Justin's work provides a novel way of viewing the art, by flattening out the vase. If I was publishing, I would be hesitant to use Bridgeman as assurance that any photos on the web site are in the public domain. Since the Supreme Court has not weighed in, this is still a not entirely settled matter of law. Much better if there is assurance from the owner that they are in the public domain.
posted by Xoc at 5:56 PM on March 14, 2013


Was in LA recently and LACMA was the only thing on my list I missed. Kubrick, Levitated Mass, Metropolis II, Mapplethorpe... ack!
posted by Theta States at 6:15 AM on March 15, 2013


« Older RIP: Boston Phoenix and WFNX Radio   |   Biketown, USA Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments