Our stance on copyright is that digital reproductions of public domain 2D source material is in the public domain, even if your laughable jurisdiction says otherwise. Regards, Christoph [1] Position of the WMF: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#The_p… [2] Straw poll, changing our policy on Wikimedia Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag/Straw… 2014/1/21 Edward Summers <ehs(a)pobox.com>

On Jan 21, 2014, at 11:53 AM, Magnus Manske <magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com> wrote: Agreed, #3 definitely seems like the best course of action to try first. Magnus, I suspect you already saw that I emailed Wellcome’s image folks [1]. If you have any other contacts at Wellcome that could help out please let me know and I will email them directly. //Ed

Wiki Commons is used for a lot of things. Copyfraud promotion should not be one of them. I explicitly advise against using #3 for this collection or any other. Using #3 would imply that we a) didn't care about the public domain and b) didn't understand the idea behind CC licences. If we acknowledge such copyright claims, we also acknowledge the possibility of legal action in case of copyright violations (e.g. by violating the terms of the licence). Apart from this ideological thought, the actual legal enforceability of these copyright claims depends on your local jurisdiction. Yet, I don't think the Wellcome Library released this collection with the intention of pursuing licence breaches. As noted on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Wellcome_Images we could create something similar to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Walters_Art_Museum_license It's not like we didn't encounter this issue before. Regards, Christoph 2014/1/21 Edward Summers <ehs(a)pobox.com>

On 21 January 2014 16:53, Magnus Manske <magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com> wrote: Not going to happen; note work-in-progress, and discussion, at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Batch_uploading/Wellcome_Images_… 2b politely explain to WT that their licence statement is in error, and why, and that even if people in the UK abide by it, it is unenforceable internationally. No, for the reasons stated by Christoph, and in the Commons discussion cited above. And we would not advise re-users that the attribution is mandatory. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

I would like to ask a question related to this discussion, but a bit broader. all CC licenses state in their page that "You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation." (example http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en) this is not already a relevant argument in favor of the cc licenses? in case of public domain, documentation remains in public domain (the license doesn't restrict it). I have to admit that in general i like the cc by-sa as a default license for museums and cultural institutions. 1. it can be applied also for documentation which is not already in public domain (texts, educational material, documentation included in catalogues, artwork descriptions). this is an important component of the collections and it does not only provide an image but also the frame to understand and contextualize that image. Encouraging institutions to provide more than the image i think it is very important to make content not only accessible but relevant to build on it. 2. mentioning the name of the institution is relevant to locate an artwork. if the company which made the photos or scanning had its name in the attribution i would consider it spam and i would fully agree to limit or avoid attribution; but the location of an artwork to me seems to provide a very relevant information for users (an artwork indeed is not the photo of the artwork; it is the artwork itself. and knowing where it is allows to have the chance to actually see it). the name of the institution can be linked to the attribution but somehow it goes beyond it. 3. share-alike represents the possibility to make what we do viral. of course i do not think we should reduce our freedom to limit what is in public domain or in cc by, but i like that our effort to make knowledge open makes more knowledge open. it nourishes what we do and it goes beyond ourselves. iolanda Il giorno 22/gen/2014, alle ore 00:43, Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt(a)gmail.com> ha scritto:

On 22/01/2014 14:12, Edward Summers wrote: .... That post while funded by the Wellcome Trust, is with Cancer Research UK, and targetted at cancer-related content. KTC -- Katie Chan Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the view of any organisation the author is associated with or employed by. Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine

Good news about the Wellcome Library images. I spoke with Catherine Draycott this morning by phone and she indicated that the CC-BY licensing was the first step in a process that includes figuring out how to get their content into the Commons so that it can be used on Wikipedia. She and a colleague have a meeting on Feb 3 with John Cummings (Wikipedia in Residence at the Natural History Museum, London) and Daria Cybulska (WIkimediaUK) to discuss this, and also to plan a possible edit-a-thon on Feb 26th. I made sure to mention the GLAMToolSet work, which should (in theory) make it a lot easier for GLAM organizations to bulk upload media and associated metadata. I was surprised to learn this is already deployed to commons.mediawiki.org but your account needs to be enabled for you to see it. I’m not entirely sure if it has been used very much yet though. So, rather than confuse things further by having starting another channel of communication I will bow out and let what Daria and John are doing take its course. //Ed On Jan 22, 2014, at 9:54 AM, Edward Summers <ehs(a)pobox.com> wrote:

Thanks, Daria, for this update! I'm curious to see how this is concretely going to be implemented on Commons in case of public domain works: - Two license templates on the respective Commons page? - One for the public domain work and another one for the faithful reproduction, mentioning that the digital image may be protected by copyright if you're sitting in the UK? - CC-by referring to the original creator and/or CC-by referring to the scanner (whoever that may be, no pun intended)? Please keep us posted! Beat From: glam-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:glam-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Daria Cybulska Sent: Freitag, 7. Februar 2014 15:42 To: Wikimedia & GLAM collaboration [Public] Cc: John Cummings Subject: Re: [GLAM] Wellcome Trust CC-BY images Hi All, Just so you are up to date on this collaboration. The in person meeting with the Trust last week has been focused on explaining and working out ways in which the upload onto Commons can be done. We were explaining upload tools and tools that can be used to measure the usage of images on Wikimedia projects. The action from that was for John Cummings to coordinate with Fae (who has very kindly offered to help us) regarding the upload, possibly starting with a pilot set of images. Wellcome's developers are based in London and should be available to assist with some technical considerations - the images' metadata sits in several databases and some work needs to be done to get it all into one place for the upload. Another consideration is that the set contains some orphan works which I suppose will have to be weeded out. The most significant aspect is of course the public domain vs CC-By licence. John can correct me here, but the feeling was that Wellcome Trust is committed to keeping the CC-By on these images and felt this is the most appropriate licence for the whole set (which includes images of various 'initial licence' statuses). Regards, Daria On 24 January 2014 15:54, Edward Summers <ehs@pobox.com<mailto:ehs@pobox.com>> wrote: Good news about the Wellcome Library images. I spoke with Catherine Draycott this morning by phone and she indicated that the CC-BY licensing was the first step in a process that includes figuring out how to get their content into the Commons so that it can be used on Wikipedia. She and a colleague have a meeting on Feb 3 with John Cummings (Wikipedia in Residence at the Natural History Museum, London) and Daria Cybulska (WIkimediaUK) to discuss this, and also to plan a possible edit-a-thon on Feb 26th. I made sure to mention the GLAMToolSet work, which should (in theory) make it a lot easier for GLAM organizations to bulk upload media and associated metadata. I was surprised to learn this is already deployed to commons.mediawiki.org<http://commons.mediawiki.org> but your account needs to be enabled for you to see it. I'm not entirely sure if it has been used very much yet though. So, rather than confuse things further by having starting another channel of communication I will bow out and let what Daria and John are doing take its course. //Ed On Jan 22, 2014, at 9:54 AM, Edward Summers <ehs@pobox.com<mailto:ehs@pobox.com>> wrote: _______________________________________________ GLAM mailing list GLAM@lists.wikimedia.org<mailto:GLAM@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam -- Daria Cybulska - Programme Manager, Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 207 065 0994 +44 7803 505 170 -- Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.

Yes, of course I'm happy to help with discussion, or to run the entire upload. Fae On 22 Jan 2014 14:13, "Edward Summers" &lt;ehs(a)pobox.com&gt; wrote: Head of Wellcome Images. She said that they were very much interested in uploading Wellcome's CC-BY images to the Commons, and suggested we talk on the phone. I was going to suggest that we: and other GLAM organizations to bulk upload images facilitate the upload like to be on the call let me know. If there is a Commons veteran who has experience with bulk uploading and is willing to work with the Wellcome Trust in a constructive way I’m willing to just tag along on the call and let them take the reigns as it were. https://cancer-research-uk-jobs.tal.net/vx/appcentre-External/brand-2/candi… http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2014/01/wellcome-images-freely-releases-100000… had any involvement in Wellcome's announcement. Perhaps he can lend insight? possible that this has been done this way through honest mistake, through justifed fears, through meddling of the legal/marketing departments.... I quite like Andy Mabbett's comment on Wellcome's blog announcement, sums up the problems (legal and technological) quite well in my opinion: claiming copyright over, and to be the original source of, artworks and images from books which are already in the public domain? Why have you added a strapline underneath each image? And why is the precess of downloading high resolution versions of these public-domain works so tortuous, with a CAPTCHA, irrelevant terms & condition, and zipped files – why not make them available directly?" - (comment no.3) http://blog.wellcomelibrary.org/2014/01/thousands-of-years-of-visual-cultur… images that we can, label them as PD and *politely* explain (preferably in person) why we do not legally recognise their CC-BY claim even though we WILL make every effort to attribute properly. While we're at it, I would point Wellcome to the Europeana PD charter http://pro.europeana.eu/web/europeana-project/public-domain-charter-en wrote: wrote: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Batch_uploading/Wellcome_Images_… Gallery be attribution,