Thanks for that clarification, Michael.
It should be noted, however, for a charity there may be a number of issues they
may need to consider:
* Do they own copyright of images? Whilst generally images created by employees
usually, unless otherwise stated, belong to their employers, the same does not
apply to volunteers unless it is specifically included.
* Does instructing staff to investigate these issues fall within their
charitable objects? Sorting out questions like the one above might take a
certain amount of staff time, but unless releasing the images falls within their
charitable objectives, diverting staff from core activities could be seen as an
inappropriate use of charity resources.
This example immediately comes up against all sorts of specific issues which
affect charities, perhaps one of the most regulated areas we could come up with.
I think Charles Matthews captured the diversity of Wikimedian views in his
recent post, and I am not sure that WMUK could successfully synthesise a view
point which would reflect this diversity without losing focus. Likewise Ed has
indicated that there is a range of material out there which already offers a
general view, even if no-one has thought to list this on the Wikipedia article.
I can't help of thinking of the wording adjacent to the very simply memorial to
Sir Christopher Wren in St Paul's Cathedral: "Reader, if you seek his memorial -
look around you."
The day to day reality of Wikipedia is - in itself - probably one of the best
argument for open knowledge.
So perhaps the document should be "Using Wikimedia Commons as a repository for
your Creative Commons media?"
Thus guidelines could be provided for what material is suitable, what benefits
arise from placing it on commons and what hoops may have to be jumped through in
order to satisfy concerns about copyvio.
all the best,
On 25 February 2016 at 21:47 Michael Maggs
I have one very small example. At a wiki meetup last month I met a the chair
of a small local charity. They have an archive of interesting local material
that the chair would like to consider scanning and releasing as PD or under a
free licence. I was asked "do you have a short, simple, non-technical document
I can give to my fellow trustees to explain why we ought to be doing this?"
Although there is a lot of material out there that explains open knowledge
and open licences in great detail it turns out that we don't actually have
anything short and simple we can hand out or point members of the public to.
And as a national charity that aspires to lead in this area we really ought to
have something that concisely answers the question "why should I release my
On 25 Feb 2016, at 18:31, Edward Saperia <edsaperia(a)gmail.com
mailto:email@example.com > wrote:
> > > > > >> WMUK would like to provide better materials
> > > > > >> the general public which explain the
benefits of open
> > > > > >> knowledge.
> > > What is the objective here?
> > Its now been 2 full working days. Am I to take it that there is no
> > objective?
> > geni
> > > >
> At the risk of sounding negative, I also don't think this seems like a
> very productive thing for the charity to spend time on. Lots of materials
> already exist that explain the benefits of open knowledge - and without a
> clear audience or channel in mind, creating more media seems a bit
> Edward Saperia
> Founder Newspeak House http://www.nwspk.com/
> email mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org • facebook
> 133-135 Bethnal Green Road, E2 7DG
> > _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org mailto:email@example.com
> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list