The Tullie House Museum in Carlisle has a number of objects on loan from the British Museum,[3] and it appears that it is only those objects that have any restrictions on photography. I took photographs of two of these (without any flash), as the restrictions are shockingly obvious cases of copyfraud, and not for any reason that might protect the works from damage.[1][2] It seems incomprehensible as to why the British Museum would ever want to make copyright claims over ~2,000 year old works especially considering they are not a money-making commercial enterprise, but a National institute and charity, with a stated objective[4] that "the collection should be put to public use and be freely accessible".
Does anyone have any ideas for action, or contacts in the Museum, that might result in a change of how loans from the BM are controlled? I'm wondering if the most effective way forward is to make some social media fuss, to ensure the Trustees of the museum pay attention. The reputational risk the apparent ignorance over copyright by the BM loans management team seems something that would be easy to correct, so changes to policy are overdue. My own experience of polite private letters to a Museum's lawyer demonstrates that you may as well save hours of volunteer time by filing these in the bin, compared to the sometimes highly effective use of a few pointed tweets written in a few minutes and shared publicly and widely across social media.
Those of us Wikimedians who work closely with GLAMs tend to shy away from any controversy, wanting the organizations to move towards sharing our open knowledge goals for positive reasons. I'm happy to try those types of collegiate ways of partnering, however drawing a few lines in the sand by highlighting embarrassing case studies, might mean we make timely progress while activist dinosaurs like me are still alive to see it happen.
Links 1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:British_Museum_2nd_century_bronze_ju... 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:British_Museum_Fortuna_statue,_with_... 3. Tullie House, Roman Frontier exhibition: http://web.archive.org/web/20161030151228/www.tulliehouse.co.uk/galleries-co... 4. British Museum "about us": http://web.archive.org/web/20170714042800/www.britishmuseum.org/about_us/man... 5. Commons village pump discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#British_Museum_and_b...
Contacts * https://twitter.com/britishmuseum * https://twitter.com/TullieHouse
Thanks, Fae
"On 28 July 2017 at 13:02, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
The Tullie House Museum in Carlisle has a number of objects on loan from the British Museum,[3] and it appears that it is only those objects that have any restrictions on photography. I took photographs of two of these (without any flash), as the restrictions are shockingly obvious cases of copyfraud, and not for any reason that might protect the works from damage.[1][2] It seems incomprehensible as to why the British Museum would ever want to make copyright claims over ~2,000 year old works especially considering they are not a money-making commercial enterprise, but a National institute and charity, with a stated objective[4] that "the collection should be put to public use and be freely accessible".
That on of the most egregious cases I've ever seen.
I note that the exhibition, according to the web page (your link [3]), is:
"Funded by The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), Northwest Regional Development Agency (NWDA), Renaissance Northwest and Carlisle City Council."
I wonder whether they're aware of these false claims? I should imagine Julia Reda would be interested, given that EU money is involved.
Maybe I misunderstand what you wrote, but from what I read they do not claim copyright over the objects. They only tell you "do not take pictures of it". Even if an object is in the public domain, the actual physical object is still their property and they can do whatever they want with it, it does not have to be displayed and they don't have to allow photographs of it even if it is exposed. However, if such photographs str taken, they cannot restrict their distribution. This is not a case of "copyfraud" from that point of view.
JP
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
"On 28 July 2017 at 13:02, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
The Tullie House Museum in Carlisle has a number of objects on loan from the British Museum,[3] and it appears that it is only those objects that have any restrictions on photography. I took photographs of two of these (without any flash), as the restrictions are shockingly obvious cases of copyfraud, and not for any reason that might protect the works from damage.[1][2] It seems incomprehensible as to why the British Museum would ever want to make copyright claims over ~2,000 year old works especially considering they are not a money-making commercial enterprise, but a National institute and charity, with a stated objective[4] that "the collection should be put to public use and be freely accessible".
That on of the most egregious cases I've ever seen.
I note that the exhibition, according to the web page (your link [3]), is:
"Funded by The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), Northwest Regional Development Agency (NWDA), Renaissance Northwest and Carlisle City Council."
I wonder whether they're aware of these false claims? I should imagine Julia Reda would be interested, given that EU money is involved.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Exposed = exhibited. My French is taking over.
JP
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Jean-Philippe Béland <jpbeland@wikimedia.ca
wrote:
Maybe I misunderstand what you wrote, but from what I read they do not claim copyright over the objects. They only tell you "do not take pictures of it". Even if an object is in the public domain, the actual physical object is still their property and they can do whatever they want with it, it does not have to be displayed and they don't have to allow photographs of it even if it is exposed. However, if such photographs str taken, they cannot restrict their distribution. This is not a case of "copyfraud" from that point of view.
JP
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
"On 28 July 2017 at 13:02, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
The Tullie House Museum in Carlisle has a number of objects on loan from the British Museum,[3] and it appears that it is only those objects that have any restrictions on photography. I took photographs of two of these (without any flash), as the restrictions are shockingly obvious cases of copyfraud, and not for any reason that might protect the works from damage.[1][2] It seems incomprehensible as to why the British Museum would ever want to make copyright claims over ~2,000 year old works especially considering they are not a money-making commercial enterprise, but a National institute and charity, with a stated objective[4] that "the collection should be put to public use and be freely accessible".
That on of the most egregious cases I've ever seen.
I note that the exhibition, according to the web page (your link [3]), is:
"Funded by The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), Northwest Regional Development Agency (NWDA), Renaissance Northwest and Carlisle City Council."
I wonder whether they're aware of these false claims? I should imagine Julia Reda would be interested, given that EU money is involved.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--
Jean-Philippe Béland
[image: Wikimedia Canada] Vice-président — Wikimédia Canada https://ca.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?uselang=fr, chapitre national soutenant Wikipédia Vice president — Wikimedia Canada https://ca.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?uselang=en, national chapter supporting Wikipedia 535 avenue Viger Est, Montréal (Québec) H2L 2P3,jpbeland@wikimedia.ca
On 28 July 2017 at 13:28, Jean-Philippe Béland jpbeland@wikimedia.ca wrote:
Maybe I misunderstand what you wrote, but from what I read they do not claim copyright over the objects. They only tell you "do not take pictures of it". Even if an object is in the public domain, the actual physical object is still their property and they can do whatever they want with it, it does not have to be displayed and they don't have to allow photographs of it even if it is exposed. However, if such photographs str taken, they cannot restrict their distribution. This is not a case of "copyfraud" from that point of view.
If you view the images to which Fae linked, the objects are clearly labelled "protected by copyright". This has no basis in UK law.
Ok sorry, I could only read the text of the email, I can't open the images from here right now, my bad.
JP
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 8:38 AM, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 28 July 2017 at 13:28, Jean-Philippe Béland jpbeland@wikimedia.ca wrote:
Maybe I misunderstand what you wrote, but from what I read they do not claim copyright over the objects. They only tell you "do not take
pictures
of it". Even if an object is in the public domain, the actual physical object is still their property and they can do whatever they want with
it,
it does not have to be displayed and they don't have to allow photographs of it even if it is exposed. However, if such photographs str taken, they cannot restrict their distribution. This is not a case of "copyfraud"
from
that point of view.
If you view the images to which Fae linked, the objects are clearly labelled "protected by copyright". This has no basis in UK law.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Fae,
I do know some people at the BM but I'm not going to waste their or my time on claims that start off by accusing them of "fraudlent" conduct and finish with demands that they immediately reverse their policies, just because you say so. If you were able to put together a reasoned case which showed that you were aware of the positive and negative sides of their and your positions, I might reconsider -- but to be honest, I'm not going to.
"Rogol"
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
The Tullie House Museum in Carlisle has a number of objects on loan from the British Museum,[3] and it appears that it is only those objects that have any restrictions on photography. I took photographs of two of these (without any flash), as the restrictions are shockingly obvious cases of copyfraud, and not for any reason that might protect the works from damage.[1][2] It seems incomprehensible as to why the British Museum would ever want to make copyright claims over ~2,000 year old works especially considering they are not a money-making commercial enterprise, but a National institute and charity, with a stated objective[4] that "the collection should be put to public use and be freely accessible".
Does anyone have any ideas for action, or contacts in the Museum, that might result in a change of how loans from the BM are controlled? I'm wondering if the most effective way forward is to make some social media fuss, to ensure the Trustees of the museum pay attention. The reputational risk the apparent ignorance over copyright by the BM loans management team seems something that would be easy to correct, so changes to policy are overdue. My own experience of polite private letters to a Museum's lawyer demonstrates that you may as well save hours of volunteer time by filing these in the bin, compared to the sometimes highly effective use of a few pointed tweets written in a few minutes and shared publicly and widely across social media.
Those of us Wikimedians who work closely with GLAMs tend to shy away from any controversy, wanting the organizations to move towards sharing our open knowledge goals for positive reasons. I'm happy to try those types of collegiate ways of partnering, however drawing a few lines in the sand by highlighting embarrassing case studies, might mean we make timely progress while activist dinosaurs like me are still alive to see it happen.
Links
century_bronze_jug,_with_copyfraud_notice.jpg 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:British_Museum_ Fortuna_statue,_with_copyfraud_notice.jpg 3. Tullie House, Roman Frontier exhibition: http://web.archive.org/web/20161030151228/www.tulliehouse.co.uk/galleries- collections/galleries/roman-frontier-gallery 4. British Museum "about us": http://web.archive.org/web/20170714042800/www.britishmuseum.org/about_us/ management/about_us.aspx 5. Commons village pump discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump# British_Museum_and_blatant_copyfraud
Contacts
Thanks, Fae -- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Rogol, thanks for your interest. I do not understand your reading of my words. However when I wrote "the restrictions are shockingly obvious cases of copyfraud" or "apparent ignorance over copyright", neither can be interpreted as an accusation of fraudulent conduct by anyone. If there is confusion about the word, I suggest reading the Wikipedia article, it's quite interesting.[1]
As for a reasoned case, I found the board level approved words on the official website, describing why the British Museum exists (see my original email), to be adequate enough to expect that their policies and their implementation of policy must avoid copyfraud in any circumstances. I'm not going to write an essay about something this obvious, nor do I expect to have to doublethink myself into giving positive reasons for a notice on an ancient artefact that claims it is under copyright, just to potentially make a few middle-managers in the administration of the two museums involved feel good about themselves. They are probably paid well enough not to worry about my plain words, or my simple-minded approach, failing to be politically diplomatic.
As previously stated, I'd be only too happy for the BM or the THM to get in touch. I'm even happy to have a chat over the phone as part of taking steps to ensure that this exhibition is fixed, and cannot reoccur in the display of future loans.
Links 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud
Thanks, Fae -- Fae https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LGBT+ http://telegram.me/wmlgbt
On 28 Jul 2017 19:09, "Rogol Domedonfors" domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Fae,
I do know some people at the BM but I'm not going to waste their or my time on claims that start off by accusing them of "fraudlent" conduct and finish with demands that they immediately reverse their policies, just because you say so. If you were able to put together a reasoned case which showed that you were aware of the positive and negative sides of their and your positions, I might reconsider -- but to be honest, I'm not going to.
"Rogol"
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
The Tullie House Museum in Carlisle has a number of objects on loan from the British Museum,[3] and it appears that it is only those objects that have any restrictions on photography. I took photographs of two of these (without any flash), as the restrictions are shockingly obvious cases of copyfraud, and not for any reason that might protect the works from damage.[1][2] It seems incomprehensible as to why the British Museum would ever want to make copyright claims over ~2,000 year old works especially considering they are not a money-making commercial enterprise, but a National institute and charity, with a stated objective[4] that "the collection should be put to public use and be freely accessible".
Does anyone have any ideas for action, or contacts in the Museum, that might result in a change of how loans from the BM are controlled? I'm wondering if the most effective way forward is to make some social media fuss, to ensure the Trustees of the museum pay attention. The reputational risk the apparent ignorance over copyright by the BM loans management team seems something that would be easy to correct, so changes to policy are overdue. My own experience of polite private letters to a Museum's lawyer demonstrates that you may as well save hours of volunteer time by filing these in the bin, compared to the sometimes highly effective use of a few pointed tweets written in a few minutes and shared publicly and widely across social media.
Those of us Wikimedians who work closely with GLAMs tend to shy away from any controversy, wanting the organizations to move towards sharing our open knowledge goals for positive reasons. I'm happy to try those types of collegiate ways of partnering, however drawing a few lines in the sand by highlighting embarrassing case studies, might mean we make timely progress while activist dinosaurs like me are still alive to see it happen.
Links
century_bronze_jug,_with_copyfraud_notice.jpg 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:British_Museum_ Fortuna_statue,_with_copyfraud_notice.jpg 3. Tullie House, Roman Frontier exhibition: http://web.archive.org/web/20161030151228/www.tulliehouse.co.uk/galleries- collections/galleries/roman-frontier-gallery 4. British Museum "about us": http://web.archive.org/web/20170714042800/www.britishmuseum.org/about_us/ management/about_us.aspx 5. Commons village pump discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump# British_Museum_and_blatant_copyfraud
Contacts
Thanks, Fae -- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Fae
When you use the headline "Copyfraud by the British Museum" (to describe the actions of some other organisation) and link to a discussion ([5] on your list) where you used the phrase "fraudulent copyright claim" twice,there is no other reasonable interpretation of your words than to understand that you are accusing the BM of fraudulent conduct. That is not a sensible basis for a serious discussion and I for one would not waste my rime getting involved with it: indeed I do not support your accusation in the slightest.
You state that as a charity the BM "must avoid copyfraud in any circumstances". Since you are using that word to cover, broadly speaking, any action to claim or protect intellectual property rights that you don't like, they clearly do not have any duty to behave exactly as you personally might happen to prefer. The question of harmonising intellectual property rights across various jurisdictions, the interaction between ownership of physical objects and their artisitic and photographic representations, the legal duties of charity trustees to achieve their charitable aims and their duty to maintain their ability to execute those aims, and all the other elements of this discussion deserve more than a causally dismissive "I'm not going to write an essay". If you can't be bothered to explain your position, I can't be bothered to support it.
If you really think your attitude of "I'm right, everyone else is wrong, and I'm not going to bother to be polite to people who don't do what I want the instant I demand it" is going to achieve anything practical, then I am not going to waste my time helping you to waste the time of people who have a job to do, which is rather more demanding, rather more worthwhile and rather less well paid than you choose to believe.
"Rogol"
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 7:43 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Rogol, thanks for your interest. I do not understand your reading of my words. However when I wrote "the restrictions are shockingly obvious cases of copyfraud" or "apparent ignorance over copyright", neither can be interpreted as an accusation of fraudulent conduct by anyone. If there is confusion about the word, I suggest reading the Wikipedia article, it's quite interesting.[1]
As for a reasoned case, I found the board level approved words on the official website, describing why the British Museum exists (see my original email), to be adequate enough to expect that their policies and their implementation of policy must avoid copyfraud in any circumstances. I'm not going to write an essay about something this obvious, nor do I expect to have to doublethink myself into giving positive reasons for a notice on an ancient artefact that claims it is under copyright, just to potentially make a few middle-managers in the administration of the two museums involved feel good about themselves. They are probably paid well enough not to worry about my plain words, or my simple-minded approach, failing to be politically diplomatic.
As previously stated, I'd be only too happy for the BM or the THM to get in touch. I'm even happy to have a chat over the phone as part of taking steps to ensure that this exhibition is fixed, and cannot reoccur in the display of future loans.
Links
Thanks, Fae -- Fae https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LGBT+ http://telegram.me/wmlgbt
On 28 Jul 2017 19:09, "Rogol Domedonfors" domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Fae,
I do know some people at the BM but I'm not going to waste their or my
time
on claims that start off by accusing them of "fraudlent" conduct and
finish
with demands that they immediately reverse their policies, just because
you
say so. If you were able to put together a reasoned case which showed
that
you were aware of the positive and negative sides of their and your positions, I might reconsider -- but to be honest, I'm not going to.
"Rogol"
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
The Tullie House Museum in Carlisle has a number of objects on loan from the British Museum,[3] and it appears that it is only those objects that have any restrictions on photography. I took photographs of two of these (without any flash), as the restrictions are shockingly obvious cases of copyfraud, and not for any reason that might protect the works from damage.[1][2] It seems incomprehensible as to why the British Museum would ever want to make copyright claims over ~2,000 year old works especially considering they are not a money-making commercial enterprise, but a National institute and charity, with a stated objective[4] that "the collection should be put to public use and be freely accessible".
Does anyone have any ideas for action, or contacts in the Museum, that might result in a change of how loans from the BM are controlled? I'm wondering if the most effective way forward is to make some social media fuss, to ensure the Trustees of the museum pay attention. The reputational risk the apparent ignorance over copyright by the BM loans management team seems something that would be easy to correct, so changes to policy are overdue. My own experience of polite private letters to a Museum's lawyer demonstrates that you may as well save hours of volunteer time by filing these in the bin, compared to the sometimes highly effective use of a few pointed tweets written in a few minutes and shared publicly and widely across social media.
Those of us Wikimedians who work closely with GLAMs tend to shy away from any controversy, wanting the organizations to move towards sharing our open knowledge goals for positive reasons. I'm happy to try those types of collegiate ways of partnering, however drawing a few lines in the sand by highlighting embarrassing case studies, might mean we make timely progress while activist dinosaurs like me are still alive to see it happen.
Links
century_bronze_jug,_with_copyfraud_notice.jpg 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:British_Museum_ Fortuna_statue,_with_copyfraud_notice.jpg 3. Tullie House, Roman Frontier exhibition: http://web.archive.org/web/20161030151228/www.
tulliehouse.co.uk/galleries-
collections/galleries/roman-frontier-gallery 4. British Museum "about us": http://web.archive.org/web/20170714042800/www.
britishmuseum.org/about_us/
management/about_us.aspx 5. Commons village pump discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump# British_Museum_and_blatant_copyfraud
Contacts
Thanks, Fae -- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 28 July 2017 at 21:29, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Fae
When you use the headline "Copyfraud by the British Museum" (to describe the actions of some other organisation) and link to a discussion ([5] on your list) where you used the phrase "fraudulent copyright claim" twice,there is no other reasonable interpretation of your words than to understand that you are accusing the BM of fraudulent conduct. That is not a sensible basis for a serious discussion and I for one would not waste my rime getting involved with it: indeed I do not support your accusation in the slightest.
You state that as a charity the BM "must avoid copyfraud in any circumstances". Since you are using that word to cover, broadly speaking, any action to claim or protect intellectual property rights that you don't like, they clearly do not have any duty to behave exactly as you personally might happen to prefer. The question of harmonising intellectual property rights across various jurisdictions, the interaction between ownership of physical objects and their artisitic and photographic representations, the legal duties of charity trustees to achieve their charitable aims and their duty to maintain their ability to execute those aims, and all the other elements of this discussion deserve more than a causally dismissive "I'm not going to write an essay". If you can't be bothered to explain your position, I can't be bothered to support it.
If you really think your attitude of "I'm right, everyone else is wrong, and I'm not going to bother to be polite to people who don't do what I want the instant I demand it" is going to achieve anything practical, then I am not going to waste my time helping you to waste the time of people who have a job to do, which is rather more demanding, rather more worthwhile and rather less well paid than you choose to believe.
Nobody believes that claiming copyright on 2,000 year old works is something that a British National Institution would want to defend. The issue is expressed in that one sentence, an essay is really not needed to explain it. So "I'm right, everyone else is wrong" does not describe what this is about.
Thanks, Fae
"Rogol"
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 7:43 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Rogol, thanks for your interest. I do not understand your reading of my words. However when I wrote "the restrictions are shockingly obvious cases of copyfraud" or "apparent ignorance over copyright", neither can be interpreted as an accusation of fraudulent conduct by anyone. If there is confusion about the word, I suggest reading the Wikipedia article, it's quite interesting.[1]
As for a reasoned case, I found the board level approved words on the official website, describing why the British Museum exists (see my original email), to be adequate enough to expect that their policies and their implementation of policy must avoid copyfraud in any circumstances. I'm not going to write an essay about something this obvious, nor do I expect to have to doublethink myself into giving positive reasons for a notice on an ancient artefact that claims it is under copyright, just to potentially make a few middle-managers in the administration of the two museums involved feel good about themselves. They are probably paid well enough not to worry about my plain words, or my simple-minded approach, failing to be politically diplomatic.
As previously stated, I'd be only too happy for the BM or the THM to get in touch. I'm even happy to have a chat over the phone as part of taking steps to ensure that this exhibition is fixed, and cannot reoccur in the display of future loans.
Links
Thanks, Fae -- Fae https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LGBT+ http://telegram.me/wmlgbt
On 28 Jul 2017 19:09, "Rogol Domedonfors" domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Fae,
I do know some people at the BM but I'm not going to waste their or my
time
on claims that start off by accusing them of "fraudlent" conduct and
finish
with demands that they immediately reverse their policies, just because
you
say so. If you were able to put together a reasoned case which showed
that
you were aware of the positive and negative sides of their and your positions, I might reconsider -- but to be honest, I'm not going to.
"Rogol"
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
The Tullie House Museum in Carlisle has a number of objects on loan from the British Museum,[3] and it appears that it is only those objects that have any restrictions on photography. I took photographs of two of these (without any flash), as the restrictions are shockingly obvious cases of copyfraud, and not for any reason that might protect the works from damage.[1][2] It seems incomprehensible as to why the British Museum would ever want to make copyright claims over ~2,000 year old works especially considering they are not a money-making commercial enterprise, but a National institute and charity, with a stated objective[4] that "the collection should be put to public use and be freely accessible".
Does anyone have any ideas for action, or contacts in the Museum, that might result in a change of how loans from the BM are controlled? I'm wondering if the most effective way forward is to make some social media fuss, to ensure the Trustees of the museum pay attention. The reputational risk the apparent ignorance over copyright by the BM loans management team seems something that would be easy to correct, so changes to policy are overdue. My own experience of polite private letters to a Museum's lawyer demonstrates that you may as well save hours of volunteer time by filing these in the bin, compared to the sometimes highly effective use of a few pointed tweets written in a few minutes and shared publicly and widely across social media.
Those of us Wikimedians who work closely with GLAMs tend to shy away from any controversy, wanting the organizations to move towards sharing our open knowledge goals for positive reasons. I'm happy to try those types of collegiate ways of partnering, however drawing a few lines in the sand by highlighting embarrassing case studies, might mean we make timely progress while activist dinosaurs like me are still alive to see it happen.
Links
century_bronze_jug,_with_copyfraud_notice.jpg 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:British_Museum_ Fortuna_statue,_with_copyfraud_notice.jpg 3. Tullie House, Roman Frontier exhibition: http://web.archive.org/web/20161030151228/www.
tulliehouse.co.uk/galleries-
collections/galleries/roman-frontier-gallery 4. British Museum "about us": http://web.archive.org/web/20170714042800/www.
britishmuseum.org/about_us/
management/about_us.aspx 5. Commons village pump discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump# British_Museum_and_blatant_copyfraud
Contacts
Thanks, Fae -- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Fae,
That single sentence does not express "the issue" as I am sure you are well aware. I imagine it does not entirely capture your views on this complex subject either. So it is not really very helpful.
Chris Keating's email depicts the likely course of events better than your over-excited claims of "fraudulent" conduct and it would be wise to actually find out what the BM's stance is before criticising it, or calling for social media campaigns to change it.
"Rogol"
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 July 2017 at 21:29, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Fae
When you use the headline "Copyfraud by the British Museum" (to describe the actions of some other organisation) and link to a discussion ([5] on your list) where you used the phrase "fraudulent copyright claim" twice,there is no other reasonable interpretation of your words than to understand that you are accusing the BM of fraudulent conduct. That is
not
a sensible basis for a serious discussion and I for one would not waste
my
rime getting involved with it: indeed I do not support your accusation in the slightest.
You state that as a charity the BM "must avoid copyfraud in any circumstances". Since you are using that word to cover, broadly speaking, any action to claim or protect intellectual property rights that you don't like, they clearly do not have any duty to behave exactly as you personally might happen to prefer. The question of harmonising intellectual property
rights
across various jurisdictions, the interaction between ownership of
physical
objects and their artisitic and photographic representations, the legal duties of charity trustees to achieve their charitable aims and their
duty
to maintain their ability to execute those aims, and all the other
elements
of this discussion deserve more than a causally dismissive "I'm not going to write an essay". If you can't be bothered to explain your position, I can't be bothered to support it.
If you really think your attitude of "I'm right, everyone else is wrong, and I'm not going to bother to be polite to people who don't do what I
want
the instant I demand it" is going to achieve anything practical, then I
am
not going to waste my time helping you to waste the time of people who
have
a job to do, which is rather more demanding, rather more worthwhile and rather less well paid than you choose to believe.
Nobody believes that claiming copyright on 2,000 year old works is something that a British National Institution would want to defend. The issue is expressed in that one sentence, an essay is really not needed to explain it. So "I'm right, everyone else is wrong" does not describe what this is about.
Thanks, Fae
"Rogol"
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 7:43 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Rogol, thanks for your interest. I do not understand your reading of my words. However when I wrote "the restrictions are shockingly obvious cases of copyfraud" or "apparent ignorance over copyright", neither can be interpreted as an accusation of fraudulent conduct by anyone. If there is confusion about the word, I suggest reading the Wikipedia article, it's quite interesting.[1]
As for a reasoned case, I found the board level approved words on the official website, describing why the British Museum exists (see my original email), to be adequate enough to expect that their policies and their implementation of policy must avoid copyfraud in any circumstances. I'm not going to write an essay about something this obvious, nor do I expect to have to doublethink myself into giving positive reasons for a notice on an ancient artefact that claims it is under copyright, just to potentially make a few middle-managers in the administration of the two museums involved feel good about themselves. They are probably paid well enough not to worry about my plain words, or my simple-minded approach, failing to be politically diplomatic.
As previously stated, I'd be only too happy for the BM or the THM to get in touch. I'm even happy to have a chat over the phone as part of taking steps to ensure that this exhibition is fixed, and cannot reoccur in the display of future loans.
Links
Thanks, Fae -- Fae https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LGBT+ http://telegram.me/wmlgbt
On 28 Jul 2017 19:09, "Rogol Domedonfors" domedonfors@gmail.com
wrote:
Fae,
I do know some people at the BM but I'm not going to waste their or my
time
on claims that start off by accusing them of "fraudlent" conduct and
finish
with demands that they immediately reverse their policies, just
because
you
say so. If you were able to put together a reasoned case which showed
that
you were aware of the positive and negative sides of their and your positions, I might reconsider -- but to be honest, I'm not going to.
"Rogol"
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
The Tullie House Museum in Carlisle has a number of objects on loan from the British Museum,[3] and it appears that it is only those objects that have any restrictions on photography. I took
photographs
of two of these (without any flash), as the restrictions are shockingly obvious cases of copyfraud, and not for any reason that might protect the works from damage.[1][2] It seems incomprehensible as to why the British Museum would ever want to make copyright
claims
over ~2,000 year old works especially considering they are not a money-making commercial enterprise, but a National institute and charity, with a stated objective[4] that "the collection should be
put
to public use and be freely accessible".
Does anyone have any ideas for action, or contacts in the Museum,
that
might result in a change of how loans from the BM are controlled?
I'm
wondering if the most effective way forward is to make some social media fuss, to ensure the Trustees of the museum pay attention. The reputational risk the apparent ignorance over copyright by the BM loans management team seems something that would be easy to correct, so changes to policy are overdue. My own experience of polite
private
letters to a Museum's lawyer demonstrates that you may as well save hours of volunteer time by filing these in the bin, compared to the sometimes highly effective use of a few pointed tweets written in a few minutes and shared publicly and widely across social media.
Those of us Wikimedians who work closely with GLAMs tend to shy away from any controversy, wanting the organizations to move towards sharing our open knowledge goals for positive reasons. I'm happy to try those types of collegiate ways of partnering, however drawing a few lines in the sand by highlighting embarrassing case studies,
might
mean we make timely progress while activist dinosaurs like me are still alive to see it happen.
Links
century_bronze_jug,_with_copyfraud_notice.jpg 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:British_Museum_ Fortuna_statue,_with_copyfraud_notice.jpg 3. Tullie House, Roman Frontier exhibition: http://web.archive.org/web/20161030151228/www.
tulliehouse.co.uk/galleries-
collections/galleries/roman-frontier-gallery 4. British Museum "about us": http://web.archive.org/web/20170714042800/www.
britishmuseum.org/about_us/
management/about_us.aspx 5. Commons village pump discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump# British_Museum_and_blatant_copyfraud
Contacts
Thanks, Fae -- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Rogol, it's worth repeating that the only one here talking about fraudulent conduct is yourself.
I'll pass on repeating it again. What I originally posted is obviously not getting read.
Thanks, Fae
On 28 July 2017 at 21:49, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Fae,
That single sentence does not express "the issue" as I am sure you are well aware. I imagine it does not entirely capture your views on this complex subject either. So it is not really very helpful.
Chris Keating's email depicts the likely course of events better than your over-excited claims of "fraudulent" conduct and it would be wise to actually find out what the BM's stance is before criticising it, or calling for social media campaigns to change it.
"Rogol"
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 July 2017 at 21:29, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Fae
When you use the headline "Copyfraud by the British Museum" (to describe the actions of some other organisation) and link to a discussion ([5] on your list) where you used the phrase "fraudulent copyright claim" twice,there is no other reasonable interpretation of your words than to understand that you are accusing the BM of fraudulent conduct. That is
not
a sensible basis for a serious discussion and I for one would not waste
my
rime getting involved with it: indeed I do not support your accusation in the slightest.
You state that as a charity the BM "must avoid copyfraud in any circumstances". Since you are using that word to cover, broadly speaking, any action to claim or protect intellectual property rights that you don't like, they clearly do not have any duty to behave exactly as you personally might happen to prefer. The question of harmonising intellectual property
rights
across various jurisdictions, the interaction between ownership of
physical
objects and their artisitic and photographic representations, the legal duties of charity trustees to achieve their charitable aims and their
duty
to maintain their ability to execute those aims, and all the other
elements
of this discussion deserve more than a causally dismissive "I'm not going to write an essay". If you can't be bothered to explain your position, I can't be bothered to support it.
If you really think your attitude of "I'm right, everyone else is wrong, and I'm not going to bother to be polite to people who don't do what I
want
the instant I demand it" is going to achieve anything practical, then I
am
not going to waste my time helping you to waste the time of people who
have
a job to do, which is rather more demanding, rather more worthwhile and rather less well paid than you choose to believe.
Nobody believes that claiming copyright on 2,000 year old works is something that a British National Institution would want to defend. The issue is expressed in that one sentence, an essay is really not needed to explain it. So "I'm right, everyone else is wrong" does not describe what this is about.
Thanks, Fae
"Rogol"
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 7:43 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Rogol, thanks for your interest. I do not understand your reading of my words. However when I wrote "the restrictions are shockingly obvious cases of copyfraud" or "apparent ignorance over copyright", neither can be interpreted as an accusation of fraudulent conduct by anyone. If there is confusion about the word, I suggest reading the Wikipedia article, it's quite interesting.[1]
As for a reasoned case, I found the board level approved words on the official website, describing why the British Museum exists (see my original email), to be adequate enough to expect that their policies and their implementation of policy must avoid copyfraud in any circumstances. I'm not going to write an essay about something this obvious, nor do I expect to have to doublethink myself into giving positive reasons for a notice on an ancient artefact that claims it is under copyright, just to potentially make a few middle-managers in the administration of the two museums involved feel good about themselves. They are probably paid well enough not to worry about my plain words, or my simple-minded approach, failing to be politically diplomatic.
As previously stated, I'd be only too happy for the BM or the THM to get in touch. I'm even happy to have a chat over the phone as part of taking steps to ensure that this exhibition is fixed, and cannot reoccur in the display of future loans.
Links
Thanks, Fae -- Fae https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LGBT+ http://telegram.me/wmlgbt
On 28 Jul 2017 19:09, "Rogol Domedonfors" domedonfors@gmail.com
wrote:
Fae,
I do know some people at the BM but I'm not going to waste their or my
time
on claims that start off by accusing them of "fraudlent" conduct and
finish
with demands that they immediately reverse their policies, just
because
you
say so. If you were able to put together a reasoned case which showed
that
you were aware of the positive and negative sides of their and your positions, I might reconsider -- but to be honest, I'm not going to.
"Rogol"
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
The Tullie House Museum in Carlisle has a number of objects on loan from the British Museum,[3] and it appears that it is only those objects that have any restrictions on photography. I took
photographs
of two of these (without any flash), as the restrictions are shockingly obvious cases of copyfraud, and not for any reason that might protect the works from damage.[1][2] It seems incomprehensible as to why the British Museum would ever want to make copyright
claims
over ~2,000 year old works especially considering they are not a money-making commercial enterprise, but a National institute and charity, with a stated objective[4] that "the collection should be
put
to public use and be freely accessible".
Does anyone have any ideas for action, or contacts in the Museum,
that
might result in a change of how loans from the BM are controlled?
I'm
wondering if the most effective way forward is to make some social media fuss, to ensure the Trustees of the museum pay attention. The reputational risk the apparent ignorance over copyright by the BM loans management team seems something that would be easy to correct, so changes to policy are overdue. My own experience of polite
private
letters to a Museum's lawyer demonstrates that you may as well save hours of volunteer time by filing these in the bin, compared to the sometimes highly effective use of a few pointed tweets written in a few minutes and shared publicly and widely across social media.
Those of us Wikimedians who work closely with GLAMs tend to shy away from any controversy, wanting the organizations to move towards sharing our open knowledge goals for positive reasons. I'm happy to try those types of collegiate ways of partnering, however drawing a few lines in the sand by highlighting embarrassing case studies,
might
mean we make timely progress while activist dinosaurs like me are still alive to see it happen.
Links
century_bronze_jug,_with_copyfraud_notice.jpg 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:British_Museum_ Fortuna_statue,_with_copyfraud_notice.jpg 3. Tullie House, Roman Frontier exhibition: http://web.archive.org/web/20161030151228/www.
tulliehouse.co.uk/galleries-
collections/galleries/roman-frontier-gallery 4. British Museum "about us": http://web.archive.org/web/20170714042800/www.
britishmuseum.org/about_us/
management/about_us.aspx 5. Commons village pump discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump# British_Museum_and_blatant_copyfraud
Contacts
Thanks, Fae -- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 28 July 2017 at 21:59, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Rogol, it's worth repeating that the only one here talking about fraudulent conduct is yourself.
If you write a post containing the word "fraud" over and over, people are going to assume you are accusing someone of fraud.
Particularly when you use a word like "copyfraud" which was specifically coined to carry the emotional freight of the concept of fraud.
If you don't realise this, you may not be the best person to be conducting public relations on this matter.
- d.
David,
Great to hear from you. A correction, as you seem to misunderstand who I am. I am not conducting public relations. I am not paid for public relations. I am simply an unpaid volunteer Wikimedian and I do not see why I should apologize for that fact. The Wikimedia community is supposed to be able to rely on this list to raise and discuss organization issues, and I'm writing as a member of the community.
The term "copyfraud" is used standardly within the Wikimedia community to describe false claims of copyright by institutions, there is no special reason to avoid the word when it's a museum that is doing it.
I expect to be able to write about issues for the Wikimedia community using language that we use in our community. I do not expect me, or anyone else, to have their free speech here limited to language that will fly well within WMF marketing or that will be diplomatic and unchallenging for the British Library's public relations department. If we see blatant copyfraud, the community should be free to call it what it is.
Thanks, Fae
On 28 July 2017 at 22:03, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 July 2017 at 21:59, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Rogol, it's worth repeating that the only one here talking about fraudulent conduct is yourself.
If you write a post containing the word "fraud" over and over, people are going to assume you are accusing someone of fraud.
Particularly when you use a word like "copyfraud" which was specifically coined to carry the emotional freight of the concept of fraud.
If you don't realise this, you may not be the best person to be conducting public relations on this matter.
- d.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Fae
Since I pointed out that your posting https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&dif... linked to in your first posting on the subject used that word, your latest email is clearly incorrect, and I think that terminates the discussion as far as I'm concerned.
"Rogol"
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Rogol, it's worth repeating that the only one here talking about fraudulent conduct is yourself.
I'll pass on repeating it again. What I originally posted is obviously not getting read.
Thanks, Fae
On 28 July 2017 at 21:49, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Fae,
That single sentence does not express "the issue" as I am sure you are
well
aware. I imagine it does not entirely capture your views on this complex subject either. So it is not really very helpful.
Chris Keating's email depicts the likely course of events better than
your
over-excited claims of "fraudulent" conduct and it would be wise to actually find out what the BM's stance is before criticising it, or
calling
for social media campaigns to change it.
"Rogol"
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 July 2017 at 21:29, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com
wrote:
Fae
When you use the headline "Copyfraud by the British Museum" (to
describe
the actions of some other organisation) and link to a discussion ([5]
on
your list) where you used the phrase "fraudulent copyright claim" twice,there is no other reasonable interpretation of your words than
to
understand that you are accusing the BM of fraudulent conduct. That
is
not
a sensible basis for a serious discussion and I for one would not
waste
my
rime getting involved with it: indeed I do not support your
accusation in
the slightest.
You state that as a charity the BM "must avoid copyfraud in any circumstances". Since you are using that word to cover, broadly speaking, any action
to
claim or protect intellectual property rights that you don't like,
they
clearly do not have any duty to behave exactly as you personally might happen to prefer. The question of harmonising intellectual property
rights
across various jurisdictions, the interaction between ownership of
physical
objects and their artisitic and photographic representations, the
legal
duties of charity trustees to achieve their charitable aims and their
duty
to maintain their ability to execute those aims, and all the other
elements
of this discussion deserve more than a causally dismissive "I'm not
going
to write an essay". If you can't be bothered to explain your
position, I
can't be bothered to support it.
If you really think your attitude of "I'm right, everyone else is
wrong,
and I'm not going to bother to be polite to people who don't do what I
want
the instant I demand it" is going to achieve anything practical, then
I
am
not going to waste my time helping you to waste the time of people who
have
a job to do, which is rather more demanding, rather more worthwhile
and
rather less well paid than you choose to believe.
Nobody believes that claiming copyright on 2,000 year old works is something that a British National Institution would want to defend. The issue is expressed in that one sentence, an essay is really not needed to explain it. So "I'm right, everyone else is wrong" does not describe what this is about.
Thanks, Fae
"Rogol"
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 7:43 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Rogol, thanks for your interest. I do not understand your reading of my words. However when I wrote "the restrictions are shockingly obvious cases of copyfraud" or "apparent ignorance over copyright", neither can be interpreted as an accusation of fraudulent conduct by anyone. If there is confusion about the word, I suggest reading the Wikipedia article, it's quite interesting.[1]
As for a reasoned case, I found the board level approved words on the official website, describing why the British Museum exists (see my original email), to be adequate enough to expect that their policies and their implementation of policy must avoid copyfraud in any circumstances. I'm not going to write an essay about something this obvious, nor do I expect to have to doublethink myself into giving positive reasons for a notice on an ancient artefact that claims it
is
under copyright, just to potentially make a few middle-managers in
the
administration of the two museums involved feel good about
themselves.
They are probably paid well enough not to worry about my plain words, or my simple-minded approach, failing to be politically diplomatic.
As previously stated, I'd be only too happy for the BM or the THM to get in touch. I'm even happy to have a chat over the phone as part of taking steps to ensure that this exhibition is fixed, and cannot reoccur in the display of future loans.
Links
Thanks, Fae -- Fae https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LGBT+ http://telegram.me/wmlgbt
On 28 Jul 2017 19:09, "Rogol Domedonfors" domedonfors@gmail.com
wrote:
Fae,
I do know some people at the BM but I'm not going to waste their
or my
time
on claims that start off by accusing them of "fraudlent" conduct
and
finish
with demands that they immediately reverse their policies, just
because
you
say so. If you were able to put together a reasoned case which
showed
that
you were aware of the positive and negative sides of their and your positions, I might reconsider -- but to be honest, I'm not going
to.
"Rogol"
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
> The Tullie House Museum in Carlisle has a number of objects on
loan
> from the British Museum,[3] and it appears that it is only those > objects that have any restrictions on photography. I took
photographs
> of two of these (without any flash), as the restrictions are > shockingly obvious cases of copyfraud, and not for any reason
that
> might protect the works from damage.[1][2] It seems
incomprehensible
> as to why the British Museum would ever want to make copyright
claims
> over ~2,000 year old works especially considering they are not a > money-making commercial enterprise, but a National institute and > charity, with a stated objective[4] that "the collection should
be
put
> to public use and be freely accessible". > > Does anyone have any ideas for action, or contacts in the Museum,
that
> might result in a change of how loans from the BM are controlled?
I'm
> wondering if the most effective way forward is to make some
social
> media fuss, to ensure the Trustees of the museum pay attention.
The
> reputational risk the apparent ignorance over copyright by the BM > loans management team seems something that would be easy to
correct,
> so changes to policy are overdue. My own experience of polite
private
> letters to a Museum's lawyer demonstrates that you may as well
save
> hours of volunteer time by filing these in the bin, compared to
the
> sometimes highly effective use of a few pointed tweets written
in a
> few minutes and shared publicly and widely across social media. > > Those of us Wikimedians who work closely with GLAMs tend to shy
away
> from any controversy, wanting the organizations to move towards > sharing our open knowledge goals for positive reasons. I'm happy
to
> try those types of collegiate ways of partnering, however
drawing a
> few lines in the sand by highlighting embarrassing case studies,
might
> mean we make timely progress while activist dinosaurs like me are > still alive to see it happen. > > Links > 1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:British_Museum_2nd_ > century_bronze_jug,_with_copyfraud_notice.jpg > 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:British_Museum_ > Fortuna_statue,_with_copyfraud_notice.jpg > 3. Tullie House, Roman Frontier exhibition: > http://web.archive.org/web/20161030151228/www.
tulliehouse.co.uk/galleries-
> collections/galleries/roman-frontier-gallery > 4. British Museum "about us": > http://web.archive.org/web/20170714042800/www.
britishmuseum.org/about_us/
> management/about_us.aspx > 5. Commons village pump discussion: > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump# > British_Museum_and_blatant_copyfraud > > Contacts > * https://twitter.com/britishmuseum > * https://twitter.com/TullieHouse > > Thanks, > Fae > -- > faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I kind of am inclined to agree with Rogol. Let's try pointing it out nicely first. There's a decent chance they'll say "Oops! Someone got carried away with the stickers", and it's fixed just that easy.
If they actually do try to claim copyright, then there's something tangible to criticize. But there's no harm in just telling them and seeing how they respond before making a big public spectacle.
Todd
On Jul 28, 2017 2:49 PM, "Rogol Domedonfors" domedonfors@gmail.com wrote:
Fae,
That single sentence does not express "the issue" as I am sure you are well aware. I imagine it does not entirely capture your views on this complex subject either. So it is not really very helpful.
Chris Keating's email depicts the likely course of events better than your over-excited claims of "fraudulent" conduct and it would be wise to actually find out what the BM's stance is before criticising it, or calling for social media campaigns to change it.
"Rogol"
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 July 2017 at 21:29, Rogol Domedonfors domedonfors@gmail.com
wrote:
Fae
When you use the headline "Copyfraud by the British Museum" (to
describe
the actions of some other organisation) and link to a discussion ([5]
on
your list) where you used the phrase "fraudulent copyright claim" twice,there is no other reasonable interpretation of your words than to understand that you are accusing the BM of fraudulent conduct. That is
not
a sensible basis for a serious discussion and I for one would not waste
my
rime getting involved with it: indeed I do not support your accusation
in
the slightest.
You state that as a charity the BM "must avoid copyfraud in any circumstances". Since you are using that word to cover, broadly speaking, any action to claim or protect intellectual property rights that you don't like, they clearly do not have any duty to behave exactly as you personally might happen to prefer. The question of harmonising intellectual property
rights
across various jurisdictions, the interaction between ownership of
physical
objects and their artisitic and photographic representations, the legal duties of charity trustees to achieve their charitable aims and their
duty
to maintain their ability to execute those aims, and all the other
elements
of this discussion deserve more than a causally dismissive "I'm not
going
to write an essay". If you can't be bothered to explain your
position, I
can't be bothered to support it.
If you really think your attitude of "I'm right, everyone else is
wrong,
and I'm not going to bother to be polite to people who don't do what I
want
the instant I demand it" is going to achieve anything practical, then I
am
not going to waste my time helping you to waste the time of people who
have
a job to do, which is rather more demanding, rather more worthwhile and rather less well paid than you choose to believe.
Nobody believes that claiming copyright on 2,000 year old works is something that a British National Institution would want to defend. The issue is expressed in that one sentence, an essay is really not needed to explain it. So "I'm right, everyone else is wrong" does not describe what this is about.
Thanks, Fae
"Rogol"
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 7:43 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Rogol, thanks for your interest. I do not understand your reading of my words. However when I wrote "the restrictions are shockingly obvious cases of copyfraud" or "apparent ignorance over copyright", neither can be interpreted as an accusation of fraudulent conduct by anyone. If there is confusion about the word, I suggest reading the Wikipedia article, it's quite interesting.[1]
As for a reasoned case, I found the board level approved words on the official website, describing why the British Museum exists (see my original email), to be adequate enough to expect that their policies and their implementation of policy must avoid copyfraud in any circumstances. I'm not going to write an essay about something this obvious, nor do I expect to have to doublethink myself into giving positive reasons for a notice on an ancient artefact that claims it is under copyright, just to potentially make a few middle-managers in the administration of the two museums involved feel good about themselves. They are probably paid well enough not to worry about my plain words, or my simple-minded approach, failing to be politically diplomatic.
As previously stated, I'd be only too happy for the BM or the THM to get in touch. I'm even happy to have a chat over the phone as part of taking steps to ensure that this exhibition is fixed, and cannot reoccur in the display of future loans.
Links
Thanks, Fae -- Fae https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LGBT+ http://telegram.me/wmlgbt
On 28 Jul 2017 19:09, "Rogol Domedonfors" domedonfors@gmail.com
wrote:
Fae,
I do know some people at the BM but I'm not going to waste their or
my
time
on claims that start off by accusing them of "fraudlent" conduct and
finish
with demands that they immediately reverse their policies, just
because
you
say so. If you were able to put together a reasoned case which
showed
that
you were aware of the positive and negative sides of their and your positions, I might reconsider -- but to be honest, I'm not going to.
"Rogol"
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 1:02 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
The Tullie House Museum in Carlisle has a number of objects on
loan
from the British Museum,[3] and it appears that it is only those objects that have any restrictions on photography. I took
photographs
of two of these (without any flash), as the restrictions are shockingly obvious cases of copyfraud, and not for any reason that might protect the works from damage.[1][2] It seems
incomprehensible
as to why the British Museum would ever want to make copyright
claims
over ~2,000 year old works especially considering they are not a money-making commercial enterprise, but a National institute and charity, with a stated objective[4] that "the collection should be
put
to public use and be freely accessible".
Does anyone have any ideas for action, or contacts in the Museum,
that
might result in a change of how loans from the BM are controlled?
I'm
wondering if the most effective way forward is to make some social media fuss, to ensure the Trustees of the museum pay attention.
The
reputational risk the apparent ignorance over copyright by the BM loans management team seems something that would be easy to
correct,
so changes to policy are overdue. My own experience of polite
private
letters to a Museum's lawyer demonstrates that you may as well
save
hours of volunteer time by filing these in the bin, compared to
the
sometimes highly effective use of a few pointed tweets written in
a
few minutes and shared publicly and widely across social media.
Those of us Wikimedians who work closely with GLAMs tend to shy
away
from any controversy, wanting the organizations to move towards sharing our open knowledge goals for positive reasons. I'm happy
to
try those types of collegiate ways of partnering, however drawing
a
few lines in the sand by highlighting embarrassing case studies,
might
mean we make timely progress while activist dinosaurs like me are still alive to see it happen.
Links
century_bronze_jug,_with_copyfraud_notice.jpg 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:British_Museum_ Fortuna_statue,_with_copyfraud_notice.jpg 3. Tullie House, Roman Frontier exhibition: http://web.archive.org/web/20161030151228/www.
tulliehouse.co.uk/galleries-
collections/galleries/roman-frontier-gallery 4. British Museum "about us": http://web.archive.org/web/20170714042800/www.
britishmuseum.org/about_us/
management/about_us.aspx 5. Commons village pump discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump# British_Museum_and_blatant_copyfraud
Contacts
Thanks, Fae -- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 28 July 2017 at 21:36, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Nobody believes that claiming copyright on 2,000 year old works
And this is where your failure to understand English and Welsh law and the history of artifact handling become a problem.
Your mistake is in assuming the only work here is from the 2000 year old sculptor and bronze worker. This is of course not the case. The reality is both items will have been subject to a certain degree of cleaning and "restoration" (you don't give British museum catalogue numbers so I can't look up exactly what). This is pretty common for any ah "headline" item that didn't go straight from the dig to a museum. Victorian collectors wanted complete statues for their collection and even today things can get a lot of work done to them (the Crosby Garrett Helmet for example).
The Roman statue presumably entered the UK pre-1972 (if it didn't we have bigger concerns than copyright) which means there is a good chance it is from the imaginative restoration era. Has the restorer been dead for 70 years? I don't know and I don't think you do.
The jug won't have come out of the ground looking like that. Has enough work been done to qualify for copyright or is it old enough for life+70 to have expired? I don't know. Do you?
Hi Geni,
Thanks for your feedback on copyright. Rather than my personal failure or mistake, I find the argument that either simple or faithful restoration work on an ancient artefact will mean it creates new copyright for the museum unlikely, based on the absence of any evidence I have seen on many Commons deletion requests that a similar case has ever gone to court, whether in England, Wales or elsewhere. In fact I do not recall any museum in the UK ever claiming copyright in this way on a restored physical ancient artefact. The two artefacts are ancient artefacts, not recent models or excessively creatively restored, as far as I could tell by looking closely at them. The massive hole in the jug, which you can see very obviously in photo I took, is a bit of a giveaway that restoration has not been excessive. If you have any alternative evidence, it would be great to share it.
If you take this further, it would be best to open up community discussion on Commons. It would help if you could can pin down the relevant parts of the copyright act, or even better provide some documented cases, rather than making hypothecated assertions. The best place to do that is in the deletion requests on the two photographs that were opened yesterday. The links are: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:British_Mu... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:British_Mu...
As for the British Museum reference numbers, this was not an oversight on my part. No references were quoted anywhere in the exhibition, nor the exhibition guide, nor did a detailed search on the British Museum database provide any more information about these two artefacts. I have no idea why. I do have photographs of the descriptive information panels against the artefacts, but as these may be copyrighted they are not suitable for Commons. If anyone wants those photographs to help research the artefacts further, I would be happy to email them.
Thanks, Fae
On 29 July 2017 at 02:12, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 July 2017 at 21:36, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Nobody believes that claiming copyright on 2,000 year old works
And this is where your failure to understand English and Welsh law and the history of artifact handling become a problem.
Your mistake is in assuming the only work here is from the 2000 year old sculptor and bronze worker. This is of course not the case. The reality is both items will have been subject to a certain degree of cleaning and "restoration" (you don't give British museum catalogue numbers so I can't look up exactly what). This is pretty common for any ah "headline" item that didn't go straight from the dig to a museum. Victorian collectors wanted complete statues for their collection and even today things can get a lot of work done to them (the Crosby Garrett Helmet for example).
The Roman statue presumably entered the UK pre-1972 (if it didn't we have bigger concerns than copyright) which means there is a good chance it is from the imaginative restoration era. Has the restorer been dead for 70 years? I don't know and I don't think you do.
The jug won't have come out of the ground looking like that. Has enough work been done to qualify for copyright or is it old enough for life+70 to have expired? I don't know. Do you?
-- geni
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
The restoration work is indeed an extensive work, but is it a "creation of the mind", which is necessary for copyright?
JP
On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 2:23 PM Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 29/07/17 02:12, geni wrote:
Your mistake is in assuming the only work here is from the 2000 year old sculptor and bronze worker.
Cf. The Cutty Sark and Knosos?
Gordo
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 31/07/17 00:06, Jean-Philippe Béland wrote:
The restoration work is indeed an extensive work, but is it a "creation of the mind", which is necessary for copyright?
JP
The Cutty Sark was almost destroyed by fire, and was rebuilt. I would say it a visitor attraction (of very high quality) that it is a facsimile of the craft that sailed the oceans. I have visited both before and after the fire (and rebuilding). Some timbers would also have replaced before the fire and also planned replacement during the 2007 conservation closure period when the fire took place.
Sir Arthur Evans also rebuilt an artifact, Knossos, and he used concrete, which was not around in the era 1380–1100 BCE.
Has something has been "created" by a mind? I would say yes, to both. In the case of the Cutty Sark, the ship was placed in a new "dry dock" so that visitors can view the hull (for example).
Gordo
Actually, on Commons I had photographs deleted on the ground that the depicted building is a replica of an old building which went out of copyright, but the replica is copyrighted (despite my objection). When I myself nominated a photograph on the same grounds, it was kept. I do not particularly care which one is correct, but it would be great to have consistent practice.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 31/07/17 00:06, Jean-Philippe Béland wrote:
The restoration work is indeed an extensive work, but is it a "creation
of
the mind", which is necessary for copyright?
JP
The Cutty Sark was almost destroyed by fire, and was rebuilt. I would say it a visitor attraction (of very high quality) that it is a facsimile of the craft that sailed the oceans. I have visited both before and after the fire (and rebuilding). Some timbers would also have replaced before the fire and also planned replacement during the 2007 conservation closure period when the fire took place.
Sir Arthur Evans also rebuilt an artifact, Knossos, and he used concrete, which was not around in the era 1380–1100 BCE.
Has something has been "created" by a mind? I would say yes, to both. In the case of the Cutty Sark, the ship was placed in a new "dry dock" so that visitors can view the hull (for example).
Gordo
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Exact replica should not be copyrighted in my opinion since they are not a "creation of the mind". That being said, the changes made by the one doing the replica can be copyrighted.
In this case of the museum, I think the person(s) doing the restoration did a "creation of the mind" since they rebuild it without having an exact model to copy.
JP
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017, 02:36 Yaroslav Blanter, ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, on Commons I had photographs deleted on the ground that the depicted building is a replica of an old building which went out of copyright, but the replica is copyrighted (despite my objection). When I myself nominated a photograph on the same grounds, it was kept. I do not particularly care which one is correct, but it would be great to have consistent practice.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 31/07/17 00:06, Jean-Philippe Béland wrote:
The restoration work is indeed an extensive work, but is it a
"creation
of
the mind", which is necessary for copyright?
JP
The Cutty Sark was almost destroyed by fire, and was rebuilt. I would say it a visitor attraction (of very high quality) that it is a facsimile of the craft that sailed the oceans. I have visited both before and after the fire (and rebuilding). Some timbers would also have replaced before the fire and also planned replacement during the 2007 conservation closure period when the fire took place.
Sir Arthur Evans also rebuilt an artifact, Knossos, and he used concrete, which was not around in the era 1380–1100 BCE.
Has something has been "created" by a mind? I would say yes, to both. In the case of the Cutty Sark, the ship was placed in a new "dry dock" so that visitors can view the hull (for example).
Gordo
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
It is my understanding that many museums automatically put a restriction on copying of material on loan, since they have not themselves investigated the copyright status. I have known libraries to do that for any book received by inter-library loan, on the same basis. Such restrictions can of course sometime produce ludicrous results, as here.
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 7:10 AM, Jean-Philippe Béland jpbeland@wikimedia.ca wrote:
Exact replica should not be copyrighted in my opinion since they are not a "creation of the mind". That being said, the changes made by the one doing the replica can be copyrighted.
In this case of the museum, I think the person(s) doing the restoration did a "creation of the mind" since they rebuild it without having an exact model to copy.
JP
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017, 02:36 Yaroslav Blanter, ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, on Commons I had photographs deleted on the ground that the depicted building is a replica of an old building which went out of copyright, but the replica is copyrighted (despite my objection). When I myself nominated a photograph on the same grounds, it was kept. I do not particularly care which one is correct, but it would be great to have consistent practice.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 3:07 PM, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 31/07/17 00:06, Jean-Philippe Béland wrote:
The restoration work is indeed an extensive work, but is it a
"creation
of
the mind", which is necessary for copyright?
JP
The Cutty Sark was almost destroyed by fire, and was rebuilt. I would say it a visitor attraction (of very high quality) that it is a facsimile of the craft that sailed the oceans. I have visited both before and after the fire (and rebuilding). Some timbers would also
have
replaced before the fire and also planned replacement during the 2007 conservation closure period when the fire took place.
Sir Arthur Evans also rebuilt an artifact, Knossos, and he used concrete, which was not around in the era 1380–1100 BCE.
Has something has been "created" by a mind? I would say yes, to both.
In
the case of the Cutty Sark, the ship was placed in a new "dry dock" so that visitors can view the hull (for example).
Gordo
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org