On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 11:43, Owen Blacker owen@blacker.me.uk wrote:
That it's a non-commercial licence is really disappointing, but that's still a little better than nothing…
With the emphasis on the "little". There are two things wrong with this, which we as a movement (and individually) need to challenge; at very reasonable opportunity.
Firstly, there's the way they're spending public money making non-free original content. we need to persuade GLAMs - and lobby funders - that such material should be freely reusable.
But far more troubling is the attempt to claim copyright in works whose copyright - if the work didn't pre-date copyright completely - expired decades or centuries ago. The latter means, in effect that they are trying to appropriate rights that belong to us all.