I imagine some of you may have seen that the Wellcome Library announced yesterday [1] that they have made over 100,000 high resolution images of manuscripts, paintings, etchings, early photography, and advertisements available using a CC-BY license. I was wondering [2] if it is ok to upload CC-BY images to the Commons.
This is mostly in theory since the downloads are sitting behind reCAPTCHAs and several levels of click throughs — but you never know :-)
//Ed
[1] http://blog.wellcomelibrary.org/2014/01/thousands-of-years-of-visual-culture... [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Can_I_uplo...
There are plenty of services out there offering to solve captchas for reasonable prices. Here's one of them: http://www.deathbycaptcha.com/ Then again I think it might be more useful to approach the Wellcome Library, both for getting easier access to their collection and informing them about our stance on copyright.
Regards, Christoph
2014/1/21 Edward Summers ehs@pobox.com
I imagine some of you may have seen that the Wellcome Library announced yesterday [1] that they have made over 100,000 high resolution images of manuscripts, paintings, etchings, early photography, and advertisements available using a CC-BY license. I was wondering [2] if it is ok to upload CC-BY images to the Commons.
This is mostly in theory since the downloads are sitting behind reCAPTCHAs and several levels of click throughs — but you never know :-)
//Ed
[1] http://blog.wellcomelibrary.org/2014/01/thousands-of-years-of-visual-culture... [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Can_I_uplo...
GLAM mailing list GLAM@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
I was thinking it would be AmazonTurk-able, but that’s neat there is a service for it. Around $140.00 wouldn’t be a terrible price to pay. Still, it would be nice to avoid it, and have Wellcome be a partner in the effort.
What is “our stance on copyright”?
//Ed
On Jan 21, 2014, at 8:24 AM, Christoph Braun christoph.braun.de@gmail.com wrote:
There are plenty of services out there offering to solve captchas for reasonable prices. Here's one of them: http://www.deathbycaptcha.com/ Then again I think it might be more useful to approach the Wellcome Library, both for getting easier access to their collection and informing them about our stance on copyright.
Regards, Christoph
2014/1/21 Edward Summers ehs@pobox.com I imagine some of you may have seen that the Wellcome Library announced yesterday [1] that they have made over 100,000 high resolution images of manuscripts, paintings, etchings, early photography, and advertisements available using a CC-BY license. I was wondering [2] if it is ok to upload CC-BY images to the Commons.
This is mostly in theory since the downloads are sitting behind reCAPTCHAs and several levels of click throughs — but you never know :-)
//Ed
[1] http://blog.wellcomelibrary.org/2014/01/thousands-of-years-of-visual-culture... [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Can_I_uplo...
GLAM mailing list GLAM@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
GLAM mailing list GLAM@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
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_po... [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@pobox.com
I was thinking it would be AmazonTurk-able, but that’s neat there is a service for it. Around $140.00 wouldn’t be a terrible price to pay. Still, it would be nice to avoid it, and have Wellcome be a partner in the effort.
What is “our stance on copyright”?
//Ed
On Jan 21, 2014, at 8:24 AM, Christoph Braun christoph.braun.de@gmail.com wrote:
There are plenty of services out there offering to solve captchas for
reasonable prices. Here's one of them: http://www.deathbycaptcha.com/
Then again I think it might be more useful to approach the Wellcome
Library, both for getting easier access to their collection and informing them about our stance on copyright.
Regards, Christoph
2014/1/21 Edward Summers ehs@pobox.com I imagine some of you may have seen that the Wellcome Library announced
yesterday [1] that they have made over 100,000 high resolution images of manuscripts, paintings, etchings, early photography, and advertisements available using a CC-BY license. I was wondering [2] if it is ok to upload CC-BY images to the Commons.
This is mostly in theory since the downloads are sitting behind
reCAPTCHAs and several levels of click throughs — but you never know :-)
//Ed
[1]
http://blog.wellcomelibrary.org/2014/01/thousands-of-years-of-visual-culture...
[2]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Can_I_uplo...
GLAM mailing list GLAM@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
GLAM mailing list GLAM@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
GLAM mailing list GLAM@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
So, we have the following options:
1. Ignore them (pity) 2. Upload them as public domain and re-iterate the National Portrait Gallery issue, and teach them that these open content wiki people are not to be trusted 3. Label them CC-BY so the Wellcome Trust can get a mandatory attribution, which we would do anyway
Personally, I'd go for #3. CC-BY is just one small step up from PD, so I really don't see the practical harm.
(Disclaimer: I am paid by the Wellcome Trust, though indirectly via a research institute, and nowhere near the image division;-)
Cheers, Magnus
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Christoph Braun < christoph.braun.de@gmail.com> wrote:
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_po... [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@pobox.com
I was thinking it would be AmazonTurk-able, but that’s neat there is a service for it. Around $140.00 wouldn’t be a terrible price to pay. Still, it would be nice to avoid it, and have Wellcome be a partner in the effort.
What is “our stance on copyright”?
//Ed
On Jan 21, 2014, at 8:24 AM, Christoph Braun < christoph.braun.de@gmail.com> wrote:
There are plenty of services out there offering to solve captchas for
reasonable prices. Here's one of them: http://www.deathbycaptcha.com/
Then again I think it might be more useful to approach the Wellcome
Library, both for getting easier access to their collection and informing them about our stance on copyright.
Regards, Christoph
2014/1/21 Edward Summers ehs@pobox.com I imagine some of you may have seen that the Wellcome Library announced
yesterday [1] that they have made over 100,000 high resolution images of manuscripts, paintings, etchings, early photography, and advertisements available using a CC-BY license. I was wondering [2] if it is ok to upload CC-BY images to the Commons.
This is mostly in theory since the downloads are sitting behind
reCAPTCHAs and several levels of click throughs — but you never know :-)
//Ed
[1]
http://blog.wellcomelibrary.org/2014/01/thousands-of-years-of-visual-culture...
[2]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Can_I_uplo...
GLAM mailing list GLAM@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
GLAM mailing list GLAM@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
GLAM mailing list GLAM@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
GLAM mailing list GLAM@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
On Jan 21, 2014, at 11:53 AM, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
So, we have the following options:
- Ignore them (pity)
- Upload them as public domain and re-iterate the National Portrait Gallery issue, and teach them that these open content wiki people are not to be trusted
- Label them CC-BY so the Wellcome Trust can get a mandatory attribution, which we would do anyway
Personally, I'd go for #3. CC-BY is just one small step up from PD, so I really don't see the practical harm.
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
oops, I forgot:
[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2014-January/007014.html
On Jan 21, 2014, at 12:12 PM, Edward Summers ehs@pobox.com wrote:
On Jan 21, 2014, at 11:53 AM, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
So, we have the following options:
- Ignore them (pity)
- Upload them as public domain and re-iterate the National Portrait Gallery issue, and teach them that these open content wiki people are not to be trusted
- Label them CC-BY so the Wellcome Trust can get a mandatory attribution, which we would do anyway
Personally, I'd go for #3. CC-BY is just one small step up from PD, so I really don't see the practical harm.
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
Personally, I'd go for #3. CC-BY is just one small step up from PD, so I really don't see the practical harm.
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@pobox.com
oops, I forgot:
[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2014-January/007014.html
On Jan 21, 2014, at 12:12 PM, Edward Summers ehs@pobox.com wrote:
On Jan 21, 2014, at 11:53 AM, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com
wrote:
So, we have the following options:
- Ignore them (pity)
- Upload them as public domain and re-iterate the National Portrait
Gallery issue, and teach them that these open content wiki people are not to be trusted
- Label them CC-BY so the Wellcome Trust can get a mandatory
attribution, which we would do anyway
Personally, I'd go for #3. CC-BY is just one small step up from PD, so
I really don't see the practical harm.
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
GLAM mailing list GLAM@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
FWIW, I think {{Licensed-PD-Art}} with CC-BY for the digital image is perfectly acceptable here.
And yes, in many countries, these are PD, period. Where I'm coming from is this: The Wellcome Trust didn't have to release these images under a free license at all. They had them under a CC-NC one, and many of their current ones still are. Yet, they invested time, money, effort, and probably quite some infighting with legal etc. to get them under a free license. They /try/ to open up as fast as they can. Slapping them in the face by screaming MOAR is, irrespective of the legal situation, unlikely to help.
If this goes well for them, they'll probably release more images under free licenses. Maybe even switch to CC-0 for some.
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Christoph Braun < christoph.braun.de@gmail.com> wrote:
Personally, I'd go for #3. CC-BY is just one small step up from PD, so I
really don't see the practical harm.
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_Imageswe 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@pobox.com
oops, I forgot:
[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2014-January/007014.html
On Jan 21, 2014, at 12:12 PM, Edward Summers ehs@pobox.com wrote:
On Jan 21, 2014, at 11:53 AM, Magnus Manske <
magnusmanske@googlemail.com> wrote:
So, we have the following options:
- Ignore them (pity)
- Upload them as public domain and re-iterate the National Portrait
Gallery issue, and teach them that these open content wiki people are not to be trusted
- Label them CC-BY so the Wellcome Trust can get a mandatory
attribution, which we would do anyway
Personally, I'd go for #3. CC-BY is just one small step up from PD, so
I really don't see the practical harm.
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
GLAM mailing list GLAM@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
GLAM mailing list GLAM@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
On 21 January 2014 16:53, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
So, we have the following options:
- Ignore them (pity)
Not going to happen; note work-in-progress, and discussion, at:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Batch_uploading/Wellcome_Images_C...
- Upload them as public domain and re-iterate the National Portrait Gallery
issue, and teach them that these open content wiki people are not to be trusted
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.
- Label them CC-BY so the Wellcome Trust can get a mandatory attribution,
which we would do anyway
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.
I see this was also announced on the WM-UK blog - http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2014/01/wellcome-images-freely-releases-100000-... I've copied in Jonathan who is the WMUK GLAM coordinator in case he's had any involvement in Wellcome's announcement. Perhaps he can lend insight?
I've worked on quite a few image-release negotiations and it is 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:
"It’s great to have these images available, digitally, but why are you 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-culture... I also agree with Andy's response here - to chose option 2b - take the 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
-Liam
wittylama.com Peace, love & metadata
On 22 January 2014 09:42, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 21 January 2014 16:53, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
So, we have the following options:
- Ignore them (pity)
Not going to happen; note work-in-progress, and discussion, at:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Batch_uploading/Wellcome_Images_C...
- Upload them as public domain and re-iterate the National Portrait
Gallery
issue, and teach them that these open content wiki people are not to be trusted
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.
- Label them CC-BY so the Wellcome Trust can get a mandatory
attribution,
which we would do anyway
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
GLAM mailing list GLAM@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
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@gmail.com ha scritto:
I see this was also announced on the WM-UK blog - http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2014/01/wellcome-images-freely-releases-100000-... I've copied in Jonathan who is the WMUK GLAM coordinator in case he's had any involvement in Wellcome's announcement. Perhaps he can lend insight?
I've worked on quite a few image-release negotiations and it is 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:
"It’s great to have these images available, digitally, but why are you 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-culture... I also agree with Andy's response here - to chose option 2b - take the 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
-Liam
wittylama.com Peace, love & metadata
On 22 January 2014 09:42, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 21 January 2014 16:53, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
So, we have the following options:
- Ignore them (pity)
Not going to happen; note work-in-progress, and discussion, at:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Batch_uploading/Wellcome_Images_C...
- Upload them as public domain and re-iterate the National Portrait Gallery
issue, and teach them that these open content wiki people are not to be trusted
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.
- Label them CC-BY so the Wellcome Trust can get a mandatory attribution,
which we would do anyway
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
GLAM mailing list GLAM@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
GLAM mailing list GLAM@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
Good news. I received an email back from Catherine Draycott who is the 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:
a) get the project described at [1] b) coordinate work here on commons-l c) talk to the GLAMToolset [2] folks who have been working with Europeana and other GLAM organizations to bulk upload images d) think about how Wellcome's Wikipedia in Residence [3] could help facilitate the upload
Does that sound like a reasonable way to proceed? If anyone else would 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.
//Ed
PS. Congratulations on the wedding Liam :-D
[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Batch_uploading [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:GLAMToolset_project [3] https://cancer-research-uk-jobs.tal.net/vx/appcentre-External/brand-2/candid...
On Jan 21, 2014, at 6:43 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
I see this was also announced on the WM-UK blog - http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2014/01/wellcome-images-freely-releases-100000-... I've copied in Jonathan who is the WMUK GLAM coordinator in case he's had any involvement in Wellcome's announcement. Perhaps he can lend insight?
I've worked on quite a few image-release negotiations and it is 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:
"It’s great to have these images available, digitally, but why are you 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-culture... I also agree with Andy's response here - to chose option 2b - take the 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
-Liam
wittylama.com Peace, love & metadata
On 22 January 2014 09:42, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 21 January 2014 16:53, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
So, we have the following options:
- Ignore them (pity)
Not going to happen; note work-in-progress, and discussion, at:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Batch_uploading/Wellcome_Images_C...
- Upload them as public domain and re-iterate the National Portrait Gallery
issue, and teach them that these open content wiki people are not to be trusted
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.
- Label them CC-BY so the Wellcome Trust can get a mandatory attribution,
which we would do anyway
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
GLAM mailing list GLAM@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
GLAM mailing list GLAM@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
On 22/01/2014 14:12, Edward Summers wrote:
d) think about how Wellcome's Wikipedia in Residence [3] could help facilitate the upload
Does that sound like a reasonable way to proceed? If anyone else would 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.
....
[3] https://cancer-research-uk-jobs.tal.net/vx/appcentre-External/brand-2/candid...
That post while funded by the Wellcome Trust, is with Cancer Research UK, and targetted at cancer-related content.
KTC
Yes, I saw that, but thought perhaps they would be interested. I wanted to at least float the idea.
//Ed
On Jan 22, 2014, at 9:47 AM, Katie Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
On 22/01/2014 14:12, Edward Summers wrote:
d) think about how Wellcome's Wikipedia in Residence [3] could help facilitate the upload
Does that sound like a reasonable way to proceed? If anyone else would 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.
....
[3] https://cancer-research-uk-jobs.tal.net/vx/appcentre-External/brand-2/candid...
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
GLAM mailing list GLAM@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
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@pobox.com wrote:
Yes, I saw that, but thought perhaps they would be interested. I wanted to at least float the idea.
//Ed
On Jan 22, 2014, at 9:47 AM, Katie Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
On 22/01/2014 14:12, Edward Summers wrote:
d) think about how Wellcome's Wikipedia in Residence [3] could help facilitate the upload
Does that sound like a reasonable way to proceed? If anyone else would 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.
....
[3] https://cancer-research-uk-jobs.tal.net/vx/appcentre-External/brand-2/candid...
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
GLAM mailing list GLAM@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
GLAM mailing list GLAM@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
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 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 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 wrote:
Yes, I saw that, but thought perhaps they would be interested. I wanted
to at least float the idea.
//Ed
On Jan 22, 2014, at 9:47 AM, Katie Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
On 22/01/2014 14:12, Edward Summers wrote:
d) think about how Wellcome's Wikipedia in Residence [3] could help
facilitate the upload
Does that sound like a reasonable way to proceed? If anyone else would
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.
....
[3]
https://cancer-research-uk-jobs.tal.net/vx/appcentre-External/brand-2/candid...
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
GLAM mailing list GLAM@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
GLAM mailing list GLAM@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
GLAM mailing list GLAM@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
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@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.commailto: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.orghttp://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.commailto:ehs@pobox.com> wrote:
Yes, I saw that, but thought perhaps they would be interested. I wanted to at least float the idea.
//Ed
On Jan 22, 2014, at 9:47 AM, Katie Chan <ktc@ktchan.infomailto:ktc@ktchan.info> wrote:
On 22/01/2014 14:12, Edward Summers wrote:
d) think about how Wellcome's Wikipedia in Residence [3] could help facilitate the upload
Does that sound like a reasonable way to proceed? If anyone else would 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.
....
[3] https://cancer-research-uk-jobs.tal.net/vx/appcentre-External/brand-2/candid...
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
GLAM mailing list GLAM@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:GLAM@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
GLAM mailing list GLAM@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:GLAM@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
_______________________________________________ GLAM mailing list GLAM@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto: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.
On 7 February 2014 14:57, Estermann Beat beat.estermann@bfh.ch wrote: ...
I’m curious to see how this is concretely going to be implemented on Commons
One thing I like to show GLAMs that have these concerns is ideas for credit templates used by other institutions as well as a design for their own. As these can be quite smart with links to the relevant catalogue on their website and a request to keep the source attributed on re-use, this may allay any concerns that provenance would be lost on PD works.
Positive steps to track re-use and work out if attribution is being preserved would help show how much this is a risk or not. My expectation is that using a nice credit template would be at least as effective as using a CC-BY licence and in the long term is less likely to be removed or replaced on a work that is public domain, for example due to its age.
We do not know for sure how this project will work out yet as we are only at the expectations stage. It should make for a nice case study when complete.
Fae
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" ehs@pobox.com wrote:
Good news. I received an email back from Catherine Draycott who is the
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:
a) get the project described at [1] b) coordinate work here on commons-l c) talk to the GLAMToolset [2] folks who have been working with Europeana
and other GLAM organizations to bulk upload images
d) think about how Wellcome's Wikipedia in Residence [3] could help
facilitate the upload
Does that sound like a reasonable way to proceed? If anyone else would
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.
//Ed
PS. Congratulations on the wedding Liam :-D
[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Batch_uploading [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:GLAMToolset_project [3]
https://cancer-research-uk-jobs.tal.net/vx/appcentre-External/brand-2/candid...
On Jan 21, 2014, at 6:43 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
I see this was also announced on the WM-UK blog -
http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2014/01/wellcome-images-freely-releases-100000-...
I've copied in Jonathan who is the WMUK GLAM coordinator in case he's
had any involvement in Wellcome's announcement. Perhaps he can lend insight?
I've worked on quite a few image-release negotiations and it is
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:
"It’s great to have these images available, digitally, but why are you
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-culture...
I also agree with Andy's response here - to chose option 2b - take the
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
-Liam
wittylama.com Peace, love & metadata
On 22 January 2014 09:42, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk
wrote:
On 21 January 2014 16:53, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com
wrote:
So, we have the following options:
- Ignore them (pity)
Not going to happen; note work-in-progress, and discussion, at:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Batch_uploading/Wellcome_Images_C...
- Upload them as public domain and re-iterate the National Portrait
Gallery
issue, and teach them that these open content wiki people are not to
be
trusted
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.
- Label them CC-BY so the Wellcome Trust can get a mandatory
attribution,
which we would do anyway
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
GLAM mailing list GLAM@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
GLAM mailing list GLAM@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
GLAM mailing list GLAM@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam