Exposed = exhibited. My French is taking over. JP On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Jean-Philippe Béland &lt;jpbeland(a)wikimedia.ca > 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 &lt;andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk&gt; > >> "On 28 July 2017 at 13:02, Fæ &lt;faewik(a)gmail.com>> >> > 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(a)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(a)wikimedia.ca > -- 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(a)wikimedia.ca

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 &lt;andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk&gt; wrote: -- 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(a)wikimedia.ca

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" &lt;domedonfors(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On 28 July 2017 at 21:29, Rogol Domedonfors &lt;domedonfors(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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 -- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

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 &lt;domedonfors(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.

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 &lt;dgerard(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.

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" &lt;domedonfors(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

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_M… https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:British_M… 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 &lt;geniice(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.

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 &lt;gordon.joly(a)pobox.com&gt; 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 &lt;gordon.joly(a)pobox.com&gt; wrote:

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 &lt;jpbeland(a)wikimedia.ca&gt; wrote: -- David Goodman DGG at the enWP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG