Hello,

Although, I'm french and based in France, I will write in english so that other readers will understand.

Firstly, dezoomify is a great tool. I wanted to thank you for this !

Secondly, although dezoomify is only a way to reach Google Arts & Culture's content, it is not making any use of this content and, in my view, is not violating the Google Arts & Culture Terms of Service. It is what people do with Google Arts & Culture content which could be an issue, not dezoomify in itself. All the more that plenty of Google Arts & Culture images are already available from Wikimedia Commons.

Thirdly, Google Arts & Culture is saying that you use their brand without permission. Maybe you could remove any clear mention of "Google Arts & Culture" and replace it by any term which would not be "Google Arts & Culture".

Fourthly, in my opinion, the very reason why you were sent this email is because Google Arts & Culture received complaints from museums, which can be understood between these lines : "You are also using content from our museum partners without permission. Your use directly jeopardizes Google's ability to make cultural works available to the world". In this case, the point is : why making cultural works available if one can not reach them ? where is the availability ? And, how, concretely, dezzomify's "use directly jeopardizes Google's ability to make cultural works available" ?

Once again, dezoomify does not "use" Google Arts & Culture content.

These are my first thoughts at this stage.

In principle, I would say that Google is not gounded to force you to shut down dezoomify (or at least to block Google Arts & Culture in dezoomify).

Hi Ophir,

I originally found Dezoomify a few months ago, used it once (AND LOVED IT, THANK YOU!), and coincidentally this morning found another need for it, and here you are with an update. Normally I would not even have seen your note because I do not use this often. And I made an account on Github specifically to comment here. I love your tool. I want to see it survive.

I am American and not a lawyer. I love your tool. I want to see it survive. I would suggest two things:

1 - remove all references to Google. I understand your point of view, and I'm not sure you're wrong, but it's not worth fighting, not because we should just roll over to corporations, but because there is no reward here, only loss. From Google's point of view, you have their name on a website and tool that they do not have a contractual relationship with. From your point of view, maybe it's fair use. From your users point of view, we don't care if the tool says Google, we want the zoomable content, we're going to try to use your tool. Only thing you have to gain is a fight. Just remove it.

2 - remove the ability to save Google Arts and Culture content. I know you're not going to like this one, and I do agree that most of the works of art themselves are old and in the public domain, BUT here's the thing, the PHOTOS that Google took of the artwork are under separate and different copyrights, so Google actually does have an argument here.

I would MUCH rather see you make these concessions in order to preserve the core functionality of this tool that is so useful far beyond the Google Arts and Culture stuff. I honestly didn't even know it could do that. I used it for different uses. And I want to be able to continue to use it. So please make these concessions, know that we know how awesome you are for figuring out the technical ability to do it, and please let us keep using Dezoomify.

I love using Dezoomify and appreciate all of the work and time you've put into it!! So THANK YOU!!

Adding to the responses above which are great btw. Although, I would like to note that PHOTO's taken by any person or museum OF art (that is not under copyright), is not considered copyrighted work. So for example, if I worked for the Smithsonian and I took a picture of a painting and put it on a website or Google Arts & Culture, that picture of the painting is not under copyright. Anyone can still use it. This has been verified by copyright lawyers and law.

I agree with the comments above on the name "Google Arts & Culture." I would just use the term "Arts & Culture," that way Google's name is out of it but people still know what it is.

Like you said, Dezoomify itself is not taking or "using" anything from Google or the museum partners so they have no grounds. I would just respond by letting them know that you'll be removing the Google name from the website and call it good.

I would like to note that PHOTO's taken by any person or museum OF art (that is not under copyright), is not considered copyrighted work.

Thank you, I didn't know that.

But I would still remove access to any Google properties.

I would be curious if there are usage stats and what percentage of users actually use Dezoomify for Google Arts and Culture.

Adding to the responses above which are great btw. Although, I would like to note that PHOTO's taken by any person or museum OF art (that is not under copyright), is not considered copyrighted work. So for example, if I worked for the Smithsonian and I took a picture of a painting and put it on a website or Google Arts & Culture, that picture of the painting is not under copyright. Anyone can still use it. This has been verified by copyright lawyers and law.

This only holds for 2d works. A photograph of a 3d object can have copyright attached by the photographer or, at least, the Corel case didn't address that.

This only holds for 2d works. A photograph of a 3d object can have copyright attached by the photographer or, at least, the Corel case didn't address that.

Interesting.

Either way, I would remove the Google stuff just to be safe.

Why not just remove any reference to Google or their branding, but leave the code intact when 'select automatically' is chosen?
If they bother you again you can think about taking the code down, but as indicated above you don't seem to actually be using any of the content and I'm not sure you are in breach of anything if you aren't using their name or storing the images. What your code does is essentially exactly what their image search does, except less sketchy from a legal perspective.

That said I have no legal background, I'm just cheeky. I guess it might be worth combing through their terms of service--have they indicated which part you are supposedly in breach of?

I love your work by the way, it's extraordinarily useful for me and it represents everything that is beautiful about the internet.

You could make an independent tool for google arts and make it float around, removing this functions from the main dezoomify app. This could help mitigate the risk for the main app.

Hello everyone,
Thank you all for your support and your nice comments. I am going to remove the term "Google" from dezoomify, but answer to let the person who sent the email know that I do not intend to remove the arts and culture dezoomer itself. Whatever happens next, I'll let you know in this thread.

@ellipsograph : I read your comment, but you posted it 9 times. While deleting the copies, I also accidentally deleted the original. Sorry.

Here is the email I want to send :

Hello,
I indeed host a free and open-source software that lets users make requests to Google Arts & Culture. If some of your users are also using this software to infringe your terms of service, then feel free to contact them. I personally am not using your service, and am not bound to its terms of service. I’d like to remind you that a vast number of the work of arts hosted on Google Arts and Culture have been in the public domain for a long time, and that the rights to these works do not belong to either Google nor the museums they are exposed in. As for using the brand, my website indeed designated “Google Arts & Culture” by its name, in an informational way, to describe the service. Following your request, I changed the wording to the generic term "Arts and Culture", which is not a trademark in France, where I am based.
Sincerely,
Ophir

P.S. To the person from google : If you are reading this thread too, you can leave a comment here directly. This will avoid having to duplicate the discussion.

Dear Ophir;
First of all, you did a great job with Dezoomify. It is extremely useful. You can be proud of it.
I'm not a lawyer, but I am involved with museums and art photographers. So, in the same way you are helping people, I will give you some advice.
First of all, Google's concerns with Dezoomify seems fair enough, because Dezoomify is giving access to Google Arts & Culture in a way Google preferred not to happen. In fact, by giving access to large resolution files not available for download to the public, and by mentioning Google Arts & Culture in the interface without mentioning clearly that Google is not endorsing it in any way, Dezoomify is really jeopardizing Google's relation with museums and art photographers. And why is that? It's not Dezoomify's fault. The problem is that you are exposing a Google weakness in its relation with the museums. As far as I know, Google reassured the museums that users of Google Arts & Culture wouldn't get a large resolution file of the photos of artworks, in order to protect third parties royalties - that is, the photographers. In fact, museums and photographers often sign agreements preventing the public to gain access to the master files, and I suppose that most of the museums sent files to Google under the condition Google would respect this sort of former agreements with photographers. Besides, some museums trust on image royalties to get extra income for their activities, which I think is fair, because most of the museums don't get enough public and private funds.
Secondly, what Google sent you by email was a request. Legally speaking, Google has nothing solid against you. If this was the case, Google wouldn't have asked you: Google would have DEMANDED you to shut down Dezoomify, threatening you with a lawsuit. However, Dezoomify is not hacking their databases. Dezoomify is only assembling image parts intended to be tiled. Without Dezoomify, everybody can assemble the same image tiles by themselves, of course spending half an our on Photoshop to do it, instead of 15 seconds with Dezoomify - which means people who are doing it by themselves, tile by tile, are so few that both Google, museums and the photographers are not even worried about them.
However, nowadays you have some parasite websites, like Alamy, that are massively downloading photos or scans from all kinds of websites representing old paintings, engravings, portraits, etc., then saving these images with larger sizes (through interpolation), and then - and this is the worst part - they are uploading it with watermarks all over the Internet and selling it without watermark for high fees - image files that don't belong to them. In many cases, these photos were taken by photographers and uploaded by museums or archives and are available for free in their own websites! Now, imagine if Alamy, or others, would start to use Dezoomify to enlarge their strategy. Maybe they are already doing it. Maybe there were some complaints about it. Who knows? I think this is mostly a problem of scale. If there were only 100 people a week using Dezoomify, and just one or two images for user, Google wouldn't care about it.
This all question is a little bit more complex, but I have tried to keep it simple.
Now, what would I do if I were you? I would answer Google saying this:

• Shutting down Dezoomify is not an option, since it is an useful tool and, it can be used in a legal and fair way, the same way Google Arts & Culture is an useful tool that can be used in a legal and fair way; in both cases, its developers don't own the photos nor the original artworks and in both cases there is also a chance some people will abuse;
• You as a developer, are concerned with possible abuses in the fair use of Dezoomify and therefore, you are willing to change the interface accordingly, and, if necessary, to remove all the mentions to Google Arts & Culture or, if Google would allow, to keep the mention to Google Arts & Culture but adding a legal notice saying the Google is by no way endorsing Zoomify. You could add to the legal notice something like "Copyright may apply to generated images" or "For personal and fair use only". Even though it is not the most reasonable option, you could even add the abovementioned disclaimer to every generated image, as a footnote watermark. Eventually, you could also prevent users from massive image assembling, by making Dezoomify available for individual users with personal accounts, and therefore limiting the number of assembled images to a certain reasonable number.
  I can think of other possible changes to Dezoomify, in order to have Google less concerned with it. You can even ask Google for what would be, in their opinion, the most reasonable changes to Dezoomify.
  However, in my opinion, there's one thing you shouldn't do: shutting down Dezoomify. And, in my opinion, if the problem for Google is only the fact that the interface is mentioning "Google Arts & Culture", than you can just replace it by something like "Please try this if other fields you've checked didn't work". This way, Dezoomify could be used for Google Arts & Culture without mentioning it.
  Please keep up the good work.

Good luck with everything Ophir. Dezoomify is super useful. Thank you for creating it.

Adding to the responses above which are great btw. Although, I would like to note that PHOTO's taken by any person or museum OF art (that is not under copyright), is not considered copyrighted work. So for example, if I worked for the Smithsonian and I took a picture of a painting and put it on a website or Google Arts & Culture, that picture of the painting is not under copyright. Anyone can still use it. This has been verified by copyright lawyers and law.

Get new lawyers. At least in Germany, photos of art are copyrighted work and also publishing your own photos of art can be restricted. Wikipedia learned that the hard way, see https://www.golem.de/news/reiss-engelhorn-museen-wikipedia-verliert-vor-dem-bundesgerichtshof-1812-138354.html or https://irights.info/artikel/landgericht-stuttgart-wikipedia-fotograf-muss-museumsfotos-loeschen/28033

Also, whoever refers to the "fair use clause": Keep in mind this is an US law only, such an exception regulation does not exist or is less powerful in other countries. So unless @lovasoa makes sure Dezoomify can be only used in the US, you can't use it for your defence.

Good August, @lovasoa: I hope You're safe (long life to You!) and this matter isn't giving You nightmares like it's doing to me😱: the Dezoomify shut down would be an catastrophe with no remedy 😭.

I state that I'm not an expert in international copyright laws and that until today I didn't even know of the existence of Google Arts & Culture. I completely agree with all the advice that users have given You before me, except the part where @yologamer-yolonamer wrote:
Even though it is not the most reasonable option, you could even add the abovementioned disclaimer to every generated image, as a footnote watermark. Eventually, you could also prevent users from massive image assembling, by making Dezoomify available for individual users with personal accounts, and therefore limiting the number of assembled images to a certain reasonable number.
Google can't force You to shut down Dezoomify: they would have to legally motivate it.
Think youtube-dl, f.e.: anyone can download clips, music, movies from dozens of streaming platforms, but none have managed to shut down the software website! Alamy and Shutterstock are other two examples. If Dezoomify has to shut down, then all the others must also be closed. Either all or none. It may also be that Your software has attracted the envy of someone who would like to see it closed to make their own for a fee and who, to achieve this, has sent protest emails to Google pretending to be an institution. Maybe Google itself would like to take over your software to make money, because Dezoomify is excellently built: my American pen-friends said the pandemic brought out the more grim, cynical and rapacious face of USA capitalism.

In my opinion🤔, if You want to feel even safer, you could add a disclaimer at the bottom of Dezoomify's homepage with which You decline any liability for any illegal use by users.

Get new lawyers. At least in Germany, photos of art are copyrighted work and also publishing your own photos of art can be restricted. Wikipedia learned that the hard way, see https://www.golem.de/news/reiss-engelhorn-museen-wikipedia-verliert-vor-dem-bundesgerichtshof-1812-138354.html or https://irights.info/artikel/landgericht-stuttgart-wikipedia-fotograf-muss-museumsfotos-loeschen/28033

I am located in the United States. Google is also based in the United States. My profession requires me to verify the statement I made with attorneys and is valid here in the United States. The case you referenced was won by the museum under the German Copyright Act. Wikipedia includes pretty much every countries 2D(paintings, photos etc) copyright info under the term “Freedom of Panorama” - just noting for useful info.

In this case though, the museums themselves are uploading their own photos onto Google Arts & Center which promotes, advertises, and states that they are “making cultural works available to the world.” Regardless of all of this back and forth talk, Dezoomify itself is not the “user” and therefore is not violating any of those laws regardless of country. This is what the discussion is here.

Within Googles FAQ’s on Google Arts & Culture, the question states: “Who can use the Google Cultural Institute platform?” And answered: “The Cultural Institute platform(meaning the backend of the platform) is open to non-profit institutions, museums, galleries, and archives with copyright-free or copyright-cleared content that they would like to share.” And even when you’re looking at artwork on GA&C, that page includes all of the arts information and does it state anything about it being under copyright (photo or actual art) or not being able to save the image.

I created a Legal concerns page on our wiki, and added a link to it from the main page.

I am a U.S. attorney who has extensive experience in the area of not only U.S. Copyright law but also of copyright laws in other countries. I will not be discussing the details of law and strategy, though, on this public site. If Ophir wants to contact me, I would be happy to give some of my time without charge. Use github.larryxl@xoxy.net for now (it is a temporary e-mail address).

I would not advise to use lawyers that are offering help like this, it could be a trap! :) Best use a lawyer from a company you know has dealt with google in court, or if HarveyMechanic can provide you with proof that he/his company worked against google for someone then thats fine too!

Google can make your life miserable if you can not afford legal fees, i would seek legal insurance or ways to avoid having to pay for fees (state-assigned lawyer example). In those cases you just forget about the lawsuit as it will go on for years because they have no case against you in the US. As for elsewhere, best is to restrict its usage to US only, people will use it via VPNs like Proton etc. which have no logs for an example. You can also state that the site iis restricted to US only and any usage thereof is abuse of the site policy, hence you retain the right to sue google if they try to screw you up :)

As for elsewhere just host the tool on github as a source-code that "doesn't work', example:

You have to write something in a script for it to work, then you distribute a non-working program that is made by the end user. That can be lets say "arts&culture: " or "#arts&culture: true" to "arts&culture: true".

Google Arts and Culture was supposed to be a "safe" site for museums to upload their stuff. By "safe" I mean Google was supposed to protect the museum-content to prevent users from download it. The existence of dezoomify web service means the site is no longer considered "safe." Therefore museum partners may be less eager to expand or worse, reduce their collection. I have found a few instances of popular artworks being removed from the site.
This is probably a thorny issue for prospective museums who are considering joining Google effort. COVID-19 has been detrimental to museums' revenue. Every week there are news of museum staff lay-off. In that light, museums try to make up the budget deficit anyway they can -- including monetizing their artworks via charging fees for hi-res download or increasing the price of prints. As such museums would want to limit the availability of hi-res sources.

In my opinion, Google Arts and Culture has open my eyes to discover so many great artists and so many more wonderful museums. I want to see the online collection grow and more works being digitized. I wonder if there's a technological compromise such as Google blocking https://ophir.alwaysdata.net from accessing their server.

I haven't thought much about this aspect but could dezoomify be an equivalence of Napster, KaZaa, Gnutella, LimeWire, Morpheus, BearShare for artworks?

I created a Legal concerns page on our wiki, and added a link to it from the main page.

You could also show a version of this when ppl make use of the tool (the first time?).

Napster, KaZaa, Gnutella, LimeWire, Morpheus, BearShare
@ChrisWin this comparison is very inopportune: those softwares (like the others currently working at full capacity: eMule, Torrent, etc.) have been explicitly designed to allow thefts. It wasn't that the user could choose whether to infringe the copyright or not: he/she infringed it regardless, as soon as he/she downloaded the .exe. Dezoomify isn't a program designed to violate the law or infringe copyright; it's the misuse some users make of dezoomified material that leads to such violations.
The legal disclaimer written by @lovasoa seems to me an excellent solution. @hartman's advice is also great. Blocking https://ophir.alwaysdata.net doesn't. You wrote:
I wonder if there's a technological compromise such as Google blocking https://ophir.alwaysdata.net from accessing their server.
This isn't a compromise, but a humiliation. I'm not aware that Google servers or Google browsers block indexing and/or access to some contents considered to be real law's infringiments. F.e.: U can read comics / manga / manhwa / manhua and watch cartoons / anime without paying anything, not? Well, it's piracy! So, Google block or everyone or anyone.

@lovasoa in your concerns page, you note:

The intellectual property and copyright laws of your country still apply

I'd like to point out that the copyright/IP law of the country of which the author of a work originates/resides and also the copyrights of the country in which a work was made and/or first published, as well as the copyright law of the country where the google servers are located ALSO apply.

These rights then get 'similar' protection in 'local law' via international treaties. This protection can be more and/or less restrictive. Importantly and paradoxically, a work can both be out of copyright in the country of origin and within copyright in the country where it was downloaded at the same time, or vice-versa. From a consumer perspective that is confusing and it is also a bit of a legal gray area, because definitively settling issues like this basically means a country suing another country and that is prohibitively expensive so just tends not to happen.

But I'd advise to note something like the following, after you point out that just because you can download something doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it:

To determine the effective copyright of any work when the countries of the author, location of production/publication of the work, hosting by 3rd parties and the country of the downloader need to be taken into account, is complex and you should consult an IP lawyer if you want certainty about the legality of your (intended) usage.

Kind regards,
Wikipedian with too much practical experience with international copyright ;)

@hartman : I updated the Legal concerns wiki page. Thank you !

Your use directly jeopardizes Google's ability to make cultural works available to the world.

Just want to add, this is a false statement. A tool like dezoomify only increases access to cultural works. Also, a vast majority of these works are in the public domain, and so one organization shouldn't "hold the keys" or claim any "rights" to these works.

Your use directly jeopardizes Google's ability to make cultural works available to the world.

Just want to add, this is a false statement. A tool like dezoomify only increases access to cultural works. Also, a vast majority of these works are in the public domain, and so one organization shouldn't "hold the keys" or claim any "rights" to these works.

It depends. I mean if one spent millions to acquire artwork from private collectors, it's difficult to release that work to public domain and free-for-all without the opportunity monetize and recoup the money. Many museums would not exist today b/c the economics would not work and so works would remain in private collection without us being able to ever seen them.

Hello everyone !

It has now been nearly 2 months since my last email to google, and I haven't received an answer. I guess they are not going to do anything more 🙂 . So I'm going to close this issue. I'll reopen it in case there is any new development.

Congratulations on your work on dezoomify. You are doing the world a great service.

I am an artist and am very angry at the way commercial ventures are continually attempting to monopolize the use of artwork that is in the public domain, and that therefore should be freely available to the world as a public good.

Nearly all of these works are in the public domain since copyright generally expires 75 years after the author/artist's death in most countries, and the artworks then pass into the public domain. These artworks are not copyrightable. In addition, accurate photographs of the artwork that have no original content are also not copyrightable. I have checked with a lawyer on this.

You will not hear from Google because they have no legal grounds for their request, and they know it. What is happening is that they want to monopolize the use of public domain images for their own commercial purposes. If people can only access these artworks on the Google site they can sell visitors advertising.

Many Art Museums disgracefully imo do the same - rather than providing a public good, many of them monopolize the photographs they take of the artworks in order to benefit commercially from the sale of books.

Museums are set up as charitable organizations to provide a public good and to provide a benefit to the public by making artworks, and by extension images of the artworks, available to the public. Yet in many public art museums their board of directors often establish policies that restrict the use of images of the artworks from the museums and charge extortionate amounts of money to anyone who wants to use those images, even if it to write a book about art - another public good.

The boards of these museums again do this for commercial reasons to the detriment of the public good.

You are a hero to provide this and we need more people like you to stand up to this disgraceful stealing and commercialization of our public artistic heritage and make it available to anyone. The art world needs more people like you to stand up to this what I believe is immoral behaviour.

Let me be very clear on one point. Nobody who downloads any images or makes those images available in any way, is infringing any copyright provided the artist who created those images has been dead for 75 years. And that applies to the vast majority of the images in Google Art Project.

Thanks you, thank you!

I use Dezoomify for education purposes. You can't copy images from the cite, and some works can not be found anywhere else. This is why we need cites like Dezoomify, so we can use the images for school projects and presentations.