What's the legal position on sharing broadcast transcripts? I've recorded a couple of recent Wikimedia-related radio interviews and transcribed them to avoid sharing the audio. I was thinking of sharing transcripts through this list and perhaps a press archive on the Wikimedia UK site. My instinct is that the content of the conversation, unlike the audio itself, is non-copyrightable, but online I've seen some descriptions of transcripts as derivative works. I'm rather keen not to get the chapter in trouble!
Martin, I would expect the transcripts to be copyright. The case I would offer is - imagine if it was the other way round with Stephen Fry reading from JK Rowling on the radio. Fair use obviously for an abstract, but the spoken book is worth a fortune and would be IMO copyright.
Roger
On 3 April 2011 10:54, Martin Poulter M.L.Poulter@bristol.ac.uk wrote:
What's the legal position on sharing broadcast transcripts? I've recorded a couple of recent Wikimedia-related radio interviews and transcribed them to avoid sharing the audio. I was thinking of sharing transcripts through this list and perhaps a press archive on the Wikimedia UK site. My instinct is that the content of the conversation, unlike the audio itself, is non-copyrightable, but online I've seen some descriptions of transcripts as derivative works. I'm rather keen not to get the chapter in trouble!
-- Dr Martin L Poulter ICT Manager, The Economics Network Based at the ILRT, University of Bristol: http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
The full experience: http://infobomb.org/ Wikipedia contributor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MartinPoulter
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Short extracts from the transcript might qualify as fair dealing (aka fair use). Publishing the whole thing would almost certainly be a copyright violation.
On 3 April 2011 10:54, Martin Poulter M.L.Poulter@bristol.ac.uk wrote:
What's the legal position on sharing broadcast transcripts? I've recorded a couple of recent Wikimedia-related radio interviews and transcribed them to avoid sharing the audio. I was thinking of sharing transcripts through this list and perhaps a press archive on the Wikimedia UK site. My instinct is that the content of the conversation, unlike the audio itself, is non-copyrightable, but online I've seen some descriptions of transcripts as derivative works. I'm rather keen not to get the chapter in trouble!
-- Dr Martin L Poulter ICT Manager, The Economics Network Based at the ILRT, University of Bristol: http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
The full experience: http://infobomb.org/ Wikipedia contributor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MartinPoulter
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 3 April 2011 12:54, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Short extracts from the transcript might qualify as fair dealing (aka fair use). Publishing the whole thing would almost certainly be a copyright violation.
I tend to assume the speaker owns their words.
But this whole thread is surmise. Is there *case law*?
- d.
On 3 April 2011 12:58, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 April 2011 12:54, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Short extracts from the transcript might qualify as fair dealing (aka fair use). Publishing the whole thing would almost certainly be a copyright violation.
I tend to assume the speaker owns their words.
But this whole thread is surmise. Is there *case law*?
I've found this discussion of Canadian law on the subject, written by a lawyer specialising in the subject:
http://www.entertainmentmedialawsignal.com/2011/02/articles/copyright/questi...
English and Welsh law isn't identical to Canadian law, by any means, but it does have a lot in common with it.
There is a case in Mexico where six words spoken by one of the trapped miners as he was released was ruled to be copyright and using them was not fair use. However this is hopefully an exceptional case.
Roger
On 3 April 2011 13:14, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 April 2011 12:58, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 April 2011 12:54, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Short extracts from the transcript might qualify as fair dealing (aka fair use). Publishing the whole thing would almost certainly be a copyright violation.
I tend to assume the speaker owns their words.
But this whole thread is surmise. Is there *case law*?
I've found this discussion of Canadian law on the subject, written by a lawyer specialising in the subject:
http://www.entertainmentmedialawsignal.com/2011/02/articles/copyright/questi...
English and Welsh law isn't identical to Canadian law, by any means, but it does have a lot in common with it.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
"Fair use" aside, the following are also interesting from a US perspective http://www.rightsofwriters.com/2011/01/who-owns-interview.htmlhttp://www.hsp... - they also seem to reach the conclusion that the copyright in the interview is held by the person recording it. Of course, in the case of interviews to which WMUK was a party and conducted by journos with whom we're on reasonably good terms, it might be possible to ask nicely whether it's OK to use a transcript. And failing everything, the person on the Wiki side who was interviewed can be asked to retype their answers to a similar set of questions.... Chris
----------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2011 13:14:45 +0100 From: thomas.dalton@gmail.com To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Transcripts of interviews
On 3 April 2011 12:58, David Gerard wrote:
On 3 April 2011 12:54, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Short extracts from the transcript might qualify as fair dealing (aka fair use). Publishing the whole thing would almost certainly be a copyright violation.
I tend to assume the speaker owns their words.
But this whole thread is surmise. Is there *case law*?
I've found this discussion of Canadian law on the subject, written by a lawyer specialising in the subject:
http://www.entertainmentmedialawsignal.com/2011/02/articles/copyright/questi...
English and Welsh law isn't identical to Canadian law, by any means, but it does have a lot in common with it.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Thanks for the feedback, everyone. I will hold fire on posting full transcripts since the situation is uncertain, though the summary of "Anglo-Canadian" law shared by Tom suggests that the person who fixes the interview in a given medium owns the copyright in that medium, so that would imply I own the copyright in the transcript.
Suffice to say that Rod Ward gave a really excellent interview to BBC World Service about academic contributions to Wikpedia, and there will be a link to the audio, and perhaps some paraphrasing, in the newsletter.
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 3 April 2011 12:58, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 April 2011 12:54, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Short extracts from the transcript might qualify as fair dealing (aka fair use). Publishing the whole thing would almost certainly be a copyright violation.
I tend to assume the speaker owns their words.
But this whole thread is surmise. Is there *case law*?
I've found this discussion of Canadian law on the subject, written by a lawyer specialising in the subject:
http://www.entertainmentmedialawsignal.com/2011/02/articles/copyright/questi...
English and Welsh law isn't identical to Canadian law, by any means, but it does have a lot in common with it.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
The same concern applies to transcripts as to translations, I believe. So you hold copyright over the *transcript* - but it is still a derivative work of the original. You can only publish the full transcript under an agreement with the original copyright holder.
User:Moonriddengirl is the one to talk to to clarify this; at the very least she will be able to point you at the right people who do know for sure. However I am confident that the above is accurate.
Tom
On 4 April 2011 09:56, Martin Poulter M.L.Poulter@bristol.ac.uk wrote:
Thanks for the feedback, everyone. I will hold fire on posting full transcripts since the situation is uncertain, though the summary of "Anglo-Canadian" law shared by Tom suggests that the person who fixes the interview in a given medium owns the copyright in that medium, so that would imply I own the copyright in the transcript.
Suffice to say that Rod Ward gave a really excellent interview to BBC World Service about academic contributions to Wikpedia, and there will be a link to the audio, and perhaps some paraphrasing, in the newsletter.
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 3 April 2011 12:58, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 April 2011 12:54, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Short extracts from the transcript might qualify as fair dealing (aka fair use). Publishing the whole thing would almost certainly be a copyright violation.
I tend to assume the speaker owns their words.
But this whole thread is surmise. Is there *case law*?
I've found this discussion of Canadian law on the subject, written by a lawyer specialising in the subject:
http://www.entertainmentmedialawsignal.com/2011/02/articles/copyright/questi...
English and Welsh law isn't identical to Canadian law, by any means, but it does have a lot in common with it.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
-- Dr Martin L Poulter ICT Manager, The Economics Network Based at the ILRT, University of Bristol: http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
The full experience: http://infobomb.org/ Wikipedia contributor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MartinPoulter
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Martin,
The audio is only available on iplayer for 7 days & some BBC programmes are only available in the UK, although being World Service that restriction may not apply.
According to http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p007dhp8 the programme on the 30th is available for another 2 days.
Presumably I could give away the copyright of my comments - but the questions asked etc probably belong to the interviewer/BBC.
Rod
From: wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Martin Poulter Sent: 04 April 2011 09:57 To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Transcripts of interviews
Thanks for the feedback, everyone. I will hold fire on posting full transcripts since the situation is uncertain, though the summary of "Anglo-Canadian" law shared by Tom suggests that the person who fixes the interview in a given medium owns the copyright in that medium, so that would imply I own the copyright in the transcript.
Suffice to say that Rod Ward gave a really excellent interview to BBC World Service about academic contributions to Wikpedia, and there will be a link to the audio, and perhaps some paraphrasing, in the newsletter.
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 3 April 2011 12:58, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 April 2011 12:54, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Short extracts from the transcript might qualify as fair dealing (aka fair use). Publishing the whole thing would almost certainly be a copyright violation.
I tend to assume the speaker owns their words.
But this whole thread is surmise. Is there *case law*?
I've found this discussion of Canadian law on the subject, written by a lawyer specialising in the subject:
http://www.entertainmentmedialawsignal.com/2011/02/articles/copyright/questi on-and-answer-who-owns-the-copyright-in-an-interview/
English and Welsh law isn't identical to Canadian law, by any means, but it does have a lot in common with it.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
-- Dr Martin L Poulter ICT Manager, The Economics Network Based at the ILRT, University of Bristol: http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
The full experience: http://infobomb.org/ Wikipedia contributor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MartinPoulter
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
_____
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1500/3549 - Release Date: 04/04/11
Rod (or anyone else):
Is it possible to contact the BBC and see if they would be interested in releasing that portion under CC-By-SA?
Tom
On 4 April 2011 10:49, Rod Ward rodward@plus.net wrote:
Martin,
The audio is only available on iplayer for 7 days & some BBC programmes are only available in the UK, although being World Service that restriction may not apply.
According to http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p007dhp8 the programme on the 30th is available for another 2 days.
Presumably I could give away the copyright of my comments – but the questions asked etc probably belong to the interviewer/BBC.
Rod
*From:* wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto: wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *Martin Poulter *Sent:* 04 April 2011 09:57
*To:* wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org *Subject:* Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Transcripts of interviews
Thanks for the feedback, everyone. I will hold fire on posting full
transcripts since the situation is uncertain, though the summary of "Anglo-Canadian" law shared by Tom suggests that the person who fixes the interview in a given medium owns the copyright in that medium, so that would imply I own the copyright in the transcript.
Suffice to say that Rod Ward gave a really excellent interview to BBC World Service about academic contributions to Wikpedia, and there will be a link to the audio, and perhaps some paraphrasing, in the newsletter.
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 3 April 2011 12:58, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 April 2011 12:54, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Short extracts from the transcript might qualify as fair dealing (aka fair use). Publishing the whole thing would almost certainly be a copyright violation.
I tend to assume the speaker owns their words.
But this whole thread is surmise. Is there *case law*?
I've found this discussion of Canadian law on the subject, written by a lawyer specialising in the subject:
http://www.entertainmentmedialawsignal.com/2011/02/articles/copyright/questi...
English and Welsh law isn't identical to Canadian law, by any means, but it does have a lot in common with it.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
-- Dr Martin L Poulter ICT Manager, The Economics Network Based at the ILRT, University of Bristol: http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
The full experience: http://infobomb.org/ Wikipedia contributor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MartinPoulter
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1500/3549 - Release Date: 04/04/11
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Rod,
Bear in mind that most "traditional" media publisher around the world operate under the assumed agreement that any contributor, guest or host, releases all copyright to the publisher, unless otherwise specified in advance. Thus I'm unsure you'd be allowed to "give away" copyright of your comments to anyone else, since your acting as the copyright owner of what you contributed to BBC may be in breach of your (assumed) agreement with them.
Deryck
On 4 April 2011 10:49, Rod Ward rodward@plus.net wrote:
Martin,
The audio is only available on iplayer for 7 days & some BBC programmes are only available in the UK, although being World Service that restriction may not apply.
According to http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p007dhp8 the programme on the 30th is available for another 2 days.
Presumably I could give away the copyright of my comments – but the questions asked etc probably belong to the interviewer/BBC.
Rod
*From:* wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto: wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *Martin Poulter *Sent:* 04 April 2011 09:57
*To:* wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org *Subject:* Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Transcripts of interviews
Thanks for the feedback, everyone. I will hold fire on posting full
transcripts since the situation is uncertain, though the summary of "Anglo-Canadian" law shared by Tom suggests that the person who fixes the interview in a given medium owns the copyright in that medium, so that would imply I own the copyright in the transcript.
Suffice to say that Rod Ward gave a really excellent interview to BBC World Service about academic contributions to Wikpedia, and there will be a link to the audio, and perhaps some paraphrasing, in the newsletter.
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 3 April 2011 12:58, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 April 2011 12:54, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Short extracts from the transcript might qualify as fair dealing (aka fair use). Publishing the whole thing would almost certainly be a copyright violation.
I tend to assume the speaker owns their words.
But this whole thread is surmise. Is there *case law*?
I've found this discussion of Canadian law on the subject, written by a lawyer specialising in the subject:
http://www.entertainmentmedialawsignal.com/2011/02/articles/copyright/questi...
English and Welsh law isn't identical to Canadian law, by any means, but it does have a lot in common with it.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
-- Dr Martin L Poulter ICT Manager, The Economics Network Based at the ILRT, University of Bristol: http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
The full experience: http://infobomb.org/ Wikipedia contributor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MartinPoulter
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1209 / Virus Database: 1500/3549 - Release Date: 04/04/11
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 4 April 2011 09:56, Martin Poulter M.L.Poulter@bristol.ac.uk wrote:
Thanks for the feedback, everyone. I will hold fire on posting full transcripts since the situation is uncertain, though the summary of "Anglo-Canadian" law shared by Tom suggests that the person who fixes the interview in a given medium owns the copyright in that medium, so that would imply I own the copyright in the transcript.
No, the broadcaster would, because they would be making a recording at the studio. This stuff is tricky ...
- d.
Oh I see, they were the first to render it into a medium. That makes more sense.
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, David Gerard wrote:
On 4 April 2011 09:56, Martin Poulter M.L.Poulter@bristol.ac.uk wrote:
Thanks for the feedback, everyone. I will hold fire on posting full transcripts since the situation is uncertain, though the summary of "Anglo-Canadian" law shared by Tom suggests that the person who fixes the interview in a given medium owns the copyright in that medium, so that would imply I own the copyright in the transcript.
No, the broadcaster would, because they would be making a recording at the studio. This stuff is tricky ...
- d.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 4 April 2011 11:55, Martin Poulter M.L.Poulter@bristol.ac.uk wrote:
Oh I see, they were the first to render it into a medium. That makes more sense.
Yes, my interpretation was that it's the first person to fix it in any medium. As a general rule, a change of medium does not invalidate previous copyright (although it can do if you are changing it to such an extent that it's the same information but a completely different presentation of it - transcribing a video wouldn't qualify as that, although summarising the video might).
BBC News (linked from front page and 4th most popular item currently!) Cancer charity to tidy up Wikipedia http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12887075
The Times Cancer Research UK to edit information on Wikipedia http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/health/news/article2971655.ece (NB behind a paywall)
Reading the Times article now, it's *glowingly* positive. The leader inside front page describes CRUK's decision to work with us as "admirable" and says that with their help, WP can provide the "best information available" to the public while giving other professionals an overview of knowledge.
A double page spread (pp. 14-15) gives some overview stats on different cancers, but the main text quotes Henry Scowcroft and Kate Arnold of CRUK and me as a Wikimedia volunteer. Henry praises WP as a source of scientific information but identifies areas that were improved by CRUK during the workshop. Henry says that his additions have not been disrupted, except for a fixed typo. Roswyn Hakesley-Brown of the Patients Association is quoted saying that Wikipedia has a part to play in informing the public, but not as a subsitute for seeing a healthcare professional. The article suggests repeatedly that the event could be a model for other organisations.
A boxed case study interviews a prostate cancer survivor. He recommends both the CRUK site and WP as "extremely helpful" in helping him understand his symptoms and the possible treatments. He says that the knowledge spread through the internet will "save lives".
This is going to be great to use in approaching potential partner organisations.
On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Martin Poulter wrote:
BBC News (linked from front page and 4th most popular item currently!) Cancer charity to tidy up Wikipedia http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12887075
The Times Cancer Research UK to edit information on Wikipedia http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/health/news/article2971655.ece (NB behind a paywall)
-- Dr Martin L Poulter ICT Manager, The Economics Network Based at the ILRT, University of Bristol: http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
The full experience: http://infobomb.org/ Wikipedia contributor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MartinPoulter
On 4 April 2011 13:29, Martin Poulter M.L.Poulter@bristol.ac.uk wrote:
Reading the Times article now, it's *glowingly* positive. The leader inside front page describes CRUK's decision to work with us as "admirable" and says that with their help, WP can provide the "best information available" to the public while giving other professionals an overview of knowledge.
Yes. Pity it's in the TImes, so only people who bought today's paper can read it and we can't link people to it!
- d.
Though the recent meltwater news v newspaper licensing agency case suggests that even that (tom dalton's interpretation) may come under question if meltwater's appeal fails.
If I understand it correctly the decision says that not even headlines only constitutes 'fair use'.
Meltwater sends new clips from the day to clients electronically, encouraging them to click on the original news story websites.
This is a scary departure from what we all (me included) would believe to be true fair use.
I'd like to think tom is correct but now I don't know he is. I hope I am wrong and he is.
Sent from my BlackBerry smartphone from Virgin Media
-----Original Message----- From: Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com Sender: wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2011 12:54:14 To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Reply-To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Transcripts of interviews
Short extracts from the transcript might qualify as fair dealing (aka fair use). Publishing the whole thing would almost certainly be a copyright violation.
On 3 April 2011 10:54, Martin Poulter M.L.Poulter@bristol.ac.uk wrote:
What's the legal position on sharing broadcast transcripts? I've recorded a couple of recent Wikimedia-related radio interviews and transcribed them to avoid sharing the audio. I was thinking of sharing transcripts through this list and perhaps a press archive on the Wikimedia UK site. My instinct is that the content of the conversation, unlike the audio itself, is non-copyrightable, but online I've seen some descriptions of transcripts as derivative works. I'm rather keen not to get the chapter in trouble!
-- Dr Martin L Poulter ICT Manager, The Economics Network Based at the ILRT, University of Bristol: http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
The full experience: http://infobomb.org/ Wikipedia contributor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MartinPoulter
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org