Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com writes:
We have never proposed Wikimedia Commons as a storage service for GLAMs. We have always said they should have their own catalogue and share copies of their multimedia with us (and everyone else) under a free license. That gives provenance and verifiability. We are not a replacement for publicly funded cultural organisations investing in their own infrastructure.
Fair enough. But is it really the case that most of the GLAMs are just providing copies? Just wondering.
Temporarily disabling access in protest is not the same as "blocking my contents without warning me" - that's actually a closer definition to what SOPA would enable if it were passed. Furthermore, AFAICT, it would be equally applicable to Wikimedia Commons, or Flickr or YouTube or any other place where they might choose to upload/share their content...
I still expect some of them to react in a way that will make them think twice before participating to an upload project. But maybe that's just me being pessimistic.