This is an interesting debate. The fact that these tags are being placed on
1700 year old paintings undermines the value of copyright claims that are
legally enforceable. We must ensure that we are respecting the law in a
clear way even if very questionable claims are being made. Paintings are
copyright in the UK for 70 years after authors death. Wikimedia has been
clear that it does not believe that you can "re-image" to get a copyright
which some UK GLAMs do in a very ordered way. They obviously believe that
this may create some new rights. Logic tells me this cannot be true as it
makes the 70 year rule a mockery.
If we go to court then we need to go at someone elses invitation. Our job at
present I think is to influence public opinion so that when the law is
changed then it moves in our direction. We can do this by not breaking the
70 year rule (ever) and by honouring attribution (always) and by challenging
these claims. This is our cultural heritage and someone with a camera cannot
claim they made it.
rant over
Roger
On 6 July 2011 05:00, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hmm their tagging system also has issues. Rather than
allowing you to
tag the paintings of your choice (the ones you actually know something
about). You have to tag paintings that are randomly presented to you.
--
geni
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK:
http://uk.wikimedia.org
--
Roger Bamkin
Chair WMUK <http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board>
01332 702993
(aka @Victuallers)