Thanks WSC,
Though our recent experience in UK chapter AGMs is that they neither
have hustings nor honestly welcomed "debates" for a few years now. As
this year's AGM will be a yet to be detailed virtual event, it's even
more unlikely that sufficient of the 500{{cn}} registered members will
take part actively to make meaningful hustings, or more than 10% of
the members to be engaged enough to vote on anything even if enabled
remotely using more than passive broadcast methods.
With regard to the British Museum, as Mike notes, some of us have been
educating through to lobbying them about better copyright policies for
a decade, frequently with individual curators as supportive of better
policies as we are. It is no coincidence that my own photograph of an
object in the BM collection is the lead image on
. Facts are facts, those of us
passionate about open knowledge should not be so worried about an
institutional or middle-management focus on PR that we fail to be
openly critical in plain English about their commercial choices that
seriously damage open knowledge or the free use of public domain
works.
Fae
On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 at 12:21, WereSpielChequers
<werespielchequers(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Andy makes some important points.
We know that even if editors in the UK respect what the British Museum is doing and
don't upload those images to Commons or Wikipedia; where they are public domain images
under US law, it is just a matter of time before someone in the movement, anywhere in the
world, uploads any of those British Museum images that are of old two D objects to Commons
as Public Domain images that can be used without attribution to the photographer or the
institution.
Of course large parts of the British Museum collection would involve images of three d
objects. In those case we can't use the BM images, but outside of lockdown people can
either go there and take photos, or if you can't get yourself to the British Museum
with a camera, make a request via the London Meetup, and if the object is on display we
can get results such as at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miniature_altarpiece_(WB.232)
The chapter remains in the awkward position of liaising with institutions that regard it
as acceptable to claim a non commercial copyright on out of copyright material, and of in
effect advocating for a position at variance with that of the wider movement.
One option that the chapter could consider would be to shift policy and instead start to
diplomatically lobby UK Museum's to, as Andy put it, stop " trying to appropriate
rights that belong to us all." Perhaps those on this list who are still members of
the chapter might consider raising this for a debate at the next AGM?
Regards
Jonathan
On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 21:06, Andy Mabbett <andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 11:43, Owen Blacker <owen(a)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.
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK:
https://wikimedia.org.uk
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK:
https://wikimedia.org.uk