Hi Jonathan,

Thanks so much for this explanation it really is helpful and yes of course i would very much like your advice on how to persuade an institution to go for a compatible license with us moreover I would like to concur with Daria on limited contractual time frames for these kinds of projects which turn to be not enough because there will be surfacing issues that one would need to deal with before moving forward. There is certainly a lot i would like to find out really from your side e.g. issues of oral citations, freedom of panorama with regards to buildings that are of historical and heritage significance e.t.c .Unfortunately i was not granted a scholarship to come to Wikimania otherwise my skype name is Bobby.shabangu i would be glad if you can invite me

Kind regards

Bobby Shabangu

Wikimediaza

On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 1:26 PM, Jonathan Cardy <jonathan.cardy@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:

Dear Bobby,

Non-commercial (NC) means it doesn't belong on Wikimedia Commons. For more detail on Commons licensing read this page.

Non Commercial use is one of the sticking points when talking to potential GLAM partners. Some people have decided on Non-Commercial use because they are a non-commercial organisation and don't see a need to having anything to do with anything commercial, others are happy to release material under a non-commercial license in the expectation of getting commercial revenue from anyone they can argue is commercial. As far as the Wikimedia projects are concerned a decision was taken to standardise on not accepting NC licensed files in the early days of the project, and that decision is highly unlikely to change. So this is one of the things to resolve when negotiating a residency, and if an organisation is committed to Non-Commercial use then we need to focus on other things. That doesn't mean we can't have a residency with an organisation that is committed to NC licensing of images. But it would need to focus on other things such as access to archives and training of their volunteers. Of course persuading an organisation to move from NC licensing to a license compatible with Wikimedia Commons can also be a big part of a residency, but there is no point digitising and or sorting out metadata for images until you are confident that they will be licensed sufficiently to go to Commons.

Hope that helps. Happy to talk on Skype or maybe at Wikimania if you want advice as to how to persuade an institution to go for a compatible license with us.

Regards

Jonathan Cardy
GLAM (Galleries, Libraries, Archives & Museums) Organiser/Trefnydd GLAM (Galeriau, Llyfrgelloedd, Archifdai a llawer Mwy!)
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0990

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.

Press Enter to send your message.

On 1 July 2014 18:51, BOBBY SHABANGU <bobbyshabangu@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi all ,

Thank you so much for this posting. I'm also the first ever WiR in the South African Chapter [[WikimediaZA]] and this information is so much helpful to me especially when it comes to reporting and what roles i can play to improve my work with the host institution. This is my 3rd week working with the Johannesburg Heritage Foundation. I'm working on a 4 months contract and though i try by all means to digitize as much documents and pictures as i can however I don't see myself finishing all the work after the 4 months because with each file I open there is a lot of untapped history most of which is not even on the internet otherwise to cut a long story short , one of the hurdles that I've faced is the licensing issue. The Johannesburg Heritage Foundation have chosen to release their material into commons under this license Creative Commons — Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International — CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 which according to my understanding it's not free. I'm interested in knowing under which license are the institutions you've been working with releasing their material under ?

Kind regards

Bobby Shabangu
WikimediaZA

Creative Commons — Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International — CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
What does "Attribute this work" mean? The page you came from contained embedded licensing metadata, including how the creator wishes to be attributed for re-use.

View on creativecommons.org

Preview by Yahoo

On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 6:45 PM, Andy Mabbett <andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:

On 1 July 2014 15:03, Daria Cybulska <daria.cybulska@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:

> I would like to get the report printed for Wikimania - if
> you have any comments that would require changes
> of content do let me know by Friday 4th July.

The report states:

'As a chapter then we have run the Wikimedian
in Residence programme since May 2012, when
Andrew Gray started his residency at the British
Library.'

As pointed out previously, this was not the first residency run by the
chapter. The first was at ARKive, in 2011.

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

_______________________________________________
GLAM mailing list
GLAM@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk


	Creative Commons — Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International — CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 What does "Attribute this work" mean? The page you came from contained embedded licensing metadata, including how the creator wishes to be attributed for re-use.
	View on creativecommons.org	Preview by Yahoo