Cross posting from the UK list, as I know there are many Commoners
interested in "sweat of the brow" type claims by national collections
in the UK, even if not resident in the UK.
Some may wish to join in on the Twitter discussion :-)
Volunteers interested in GLAM may be interested to read the letter to
The Times today from an extensive list of highly respected academics
and museum directors, lobbying against arbitrary image fees charged by
UK national museums and their doubtful claims of copyright.
Quote: "Fees are also charged despite the fact that the artworks in
question are not only publicly owned, but out of copyright (that is,
made by artists who died more than 70 years ago). Museums claim they
create a new copyright when making a faithful reproduction of a 2D
artwork by photography or scanning, but it is doubtful that the law
supports this. Museums' rules for using images are confusing and
inconsistent, and do not raise meaningful funds once costs are taken
Copyfraud used by GLAMs has been discussed within the Wikimedia
community many times in many forums. This letter may be a useful model
for the UK chapter to follow and to have a stronger public position
on. The potential of GLAM projects using WMF funding may take the
requirement correctly to license public domain images as public
domain, as an ethical precursor for any GLAM partnership to be
and summary article for research purposes
Bendor Grosvenor's article "Museum image fees - a call to arms"
Definition of copyfraud