On 28 July 2017 at 17:18, John Byrne <john(a)bodkinprints.co.uk> wrote:
The BM still in effect operates a "don't ask,
don't tell" policy on
photography - see
[
http://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/2011-11-14%20Visitor%20Regulations%20FINAL…
section 8.1] here: "8.1 Except where indicated by notices, you are permitted
to use hand-held cameras (including mobile phones) with flash bulbs or flash
units, and audio and film recording equipment not requiring a stand. You may
use your photographs, film and audio recordings only for your own private
and non-commercial purposes." The same goes for the images on their website.
But as I think Fae knows, they have in the past kindly facilitated
back-stage photography of objects by Wikipedians, knowing the images will be
uploaded to Commons. Matthew Cock, our former main contact left some years
ago. Most "policy" matters are hard to change at the BM because of the size
of the organization. Everything "would have to go to the Trustees" - an
appalling vista for middle management.
No doubt the THM is trying to enforce these standard terms, reflected in the
loan agreement, more strictly than the BM itself does. I'm not sure there's
much point in going to or after them.
One day their main policy will improve, but they are not easy to pressure -
in practice things work ok as it is, normally.
John
Thanks John, I recall us having meetings with BM folks. It was
illuminating hearing how things work from the inside. Within my
personal network I have some insight into the BM specifically, and
other large academic related institutions. In general we get a
positive response from curators and researchers who may plan an
exhibition, in fact their issues with our open projects are spot on
and match our own concerns. But this is a very separate world from the
operations and marketing middle management who make the final
decisions on loan policies and public exhibition standards.
From the perspective of open knowledge advocates, after
meetings and
presentations I have had curators shake my hand and thank me for
saying things they cannot. One of the great benefits of having unpaid
volunteers like us knocking around with no "professional" affiliation
with the institutions that may manage the content we are passionate
about, is that we can say obvious things, without worrying too much
about diplomacy or PR.
Despite being criticised for making waves every now and then, it's
those personal thanks for doing what I do that will encourage me to
call unambiguous copyfraud, copyfraud, whenever I see it.
If anyone wants to see my previous efforts trying politely talking to
IP lawyers representing an institution that simply does not get it,
they can take a look at my correspondence with the Imperial War
Museum.[1] It's four years since I very politely and clearly gave them
the facts about their continued copyfraud, and they have not lifted a
finger to correct it. I guess they are too big to care about my tweets
that continue to point out this problem,[2] however it would be great
if WMUK wanted to invest some resources into changing their minds; in
line with our shared vision of open knowledge and free access to
public content.
Links
1.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/email/IWM IWM emails.
2.
https://twitter.com/Faewik/status/890954001990201346 example tweet
on copyfraud from earlier today.
Cheers,
Fae
--
faewik(a)gmail.com
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae