On 28 July 2017 at 17:18, John Byrne john@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
First: I know me and you haven't got on very well in the past Fae, so I want to underline that this email is meant in the friendliest way possible. I really appreciate the work you do on Commons, and am deeply struck by the passion with which you approach our shared goal. We're both on the same team - working for free knowledge.
That said, there's a bit of criticism - constructive, I hope. I'm not sure if further emails like the ones at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:F%C3%A6/email/IWM would be very helpful - they didn't work at the time, and clearly haven't worked in the past four years, despite your tweeting. The issue the IWM had in that case was that they didn't agree with you that it was copyfraud. The solution would be a sit-down talk between professionals, that is as you say, "invest some resources into changing their minds".
I remember trying this with the IWM in 2013 - at the time, I was talking to the institution about the WW1 centenary, which they were the driving force behind. They were happy to talk, and extremely friendly, and we had several meetings with them. However, they had issues with the emails that you were sending to them, which they saw as rude, passive-aggressive, and generally unhelpful. The institution didn't see them as polite correspondence, and it made them reticent to work with Wikipedia because they didn't feel like they could be a part of a community that spoke to people like that. I know that to you the emails were professional and to the point, and objectively correct. But to them it came across as unprofessional, and that it happened during the run-up to the WWI centenary made it very difficult for Wikipedia to get involved in the commemorations in any more than a passive capacity. You redoubled your efforts after you saw the IWM refusing to change, but sometimes, our passion for change - for righting the wrongs in the world - makes us seem like fanatics to middle-managers in cultural institutions. This pushed them away, and made it harder for them to understand our point of view.
The solution here is, as you say, friendly and professional discussions - social media campaigns about it, as well as using words like "copyfraud" (which invoke thoughts of criminality in the minds of the reader), are counterproductive. We need to be professional and approachable, engendering change through example, and although social media campaigns and shaming work sometimes (and are legitimate ways of forcing change on an old institution), we have to be careful not to go to it as a first option, especially when our strength in WMUK is our professional connections throughout the third sector and "GLAM" world.
On 28 July 2017 at 18:16, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 July 2017 at 17:18, John Byrne john@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.pdf
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
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/email/IWM IWM emails.
- https://twitter.com/Faewik/status/890954001990201346 example tweet
on copyfraud from earlier today.
Cheers, Fae -- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
To go back to my original point, rather than off on a tangent about something that happened many years ago:
I think it's really important we reach out to the IWM through WMUK's professional networks, with face-to-face meetings, and would really support WMUK if they chose to do that. I think to do so would be more productive than a grassroots campaign in this instance.
On 28 July 2017 at 20:32, Richard Symonds chasemewiki@gmail.com wrote:
First: I know me and you haven't got on very well in the past Fae, so I want to underline that this email is meant in the friendliest way possible. I really appreciate the work you do on Commons, and am deeply struck by the passion with which you approach our shared goal. We're both on the same team - working for free knowledge.
That said, there's a bit of criticism - constructive, I hope. I'm not sure if further emails like the ones at https://commons.wikimedia. org/wiki/User:F%C3%A6/email/IWM would be very helpful - they didn't work at the time, and clearly haven't worked in the past four years, despite your tweeting. The issue the IWM had in that case was that they didn't agree with you that it was copyfraud. The solution would be a sit-down talk between professionals, that is as you say, "invest some resources into changing their minds".
I remember trying this with the IWM in 2013 - at the time, I was talking to the institution about the WW1 centenary, which they were the driving force behind. They were happy to talk, and extremely friendly, and we had several meetings with them. However, they had issues with the emails that you were sending to them, which they saw as rude, passive-aggressive, and generally unhelpful. The institution didn't see them as polite correspondence, and it made them reticent to work with Wikipedia because they didn't feel like they could be a part of a community that spoke to people like that. I know that to you the emails were professional and to the point, and objectively correct. But to them it came across as unprofessional, and that it happened during the run-up to the WWI centenary made it very difficult for Wikipedia to get involved in the commemorations in any more than a passive capacity. You redoubled your efforts after you saw the IWM refusing to change, but sometimes, our passion for change - for righting the wrongs in the world - makes us seem like fanatics to middle-managers in cultural institutions. This pushed them away, and made it harder for them to understand our point of view.
The solution here is, as you say, friendly and professional discussions - social media campaigns about it, as well as using words like "copyfraud" (which invoke thoughts of criminality in the minds of the reader), are counterproductive. We need to be professional and approachable, engendering change through example, and although social media campaigns and shaming work sometimes (and are legitimate ways of forcing change on an old institution), we have to be careful not to go to it as a first option, especially when our strength in WMUK is our professional connections throughout the third sector and "GLAM" world.
On 28 July 2017 at 18:16, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 July 2017 at 17:18, John Byrne john@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%20Reg
ulations%20FINAL.pdf
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
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/email/IWM IWM emails.
- https://twitter.com/Faewik/status/890954001990201346 example tweet
on copyfraud from earlier today.
Cheers, Fae -- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org