The Tullie House Museum in Carlisle has a number of objects on loan from the British Museum,[3] and it appears that it is only those objects that have any restrictions on photography. I took photographs of two of these (without any flash), as the restrictions are shockingly obvious cases of copyfraud, and not for any reason that might protect the works from damage.[1][2] It seems incomprehensible as to why the British Museum would ever want to make copyright claims over ~2,000 year old works especially considering they are not a money-making commercial enterprise, but a National institute and charity, with a stated objective[4] that "the collection should be put to public use and be freely accessible".
Does anyone have any ideas for action, or contacts in the Museum, that might result in a change of how loans from the BM are controlled? I'm wondering if the most effective way forward is to make some social media fuss, to ensure the Trustees of the museum pay attention. The reputational risk the apparent ignorance over copyright by the BM loans management team seems something that would be easy to correct, so changes to policy are overdue. My own experience of polite private letters to a Museum's lawyer demonstrates that you may as well save hours of volunteer time by filing these in the bin, compared to the sometimes highly effective use of a few pointed tweets written in a few minutes and shared publicly and widely across social media.
Those of us Wikimedians who work closely with GLAMs tend to shy away from any controversy, wanting the organizations to move towards sharing our open knowledge goals for positive reasons. I'm happy to try those types of collegiate ways of partnering, however drawing a few lines in the sand by highlighting embarrassing case studies, might mean we make timely progress while activist dinosaurs like me are still alive to see it happen.
Links 1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:British_Museum_2nd_century_bronze_ju... 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:British_Museum_Fortuna_statue,_with_... 3. Tullie House, Roman Frontier exhibition: http://web.archive.org/web/20161030151228/www.tulliehouse.co.uk/galleries-co... 4. British Museum "about us": http://web.archive.org/web/20170714042800/www.britishmuseum.org/about_us/man... 5. Commons village pump discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#British_Museum_and_b...
Contacts * https://twitter.com/britishmuseum * https://twitter.com/TullieHouse
Thanks, Fae
Attempting to embarrass the British Museum is misguided and certainly would not build bridges for future collaboration. On 28 Jul 2017 13:03, "Fæ" faewik@gmail.com wrote:
The Tullie House Museum in Carlisle has a number of objects on loan from the British Museum,[3] and it appears that it is only those objects that have any restrictions on photography. I took photographs of two of these (without any flash), as the restrictions are shockingly obvious cases of copyfraud, and not for any reason that might protect the works from damage.[1][2] It seems incomprehensible as to why the British Museum would ever want to make copyright claims over ~2,000 year old works especially considering they are not a money-making commercial enterprise, but a National institute and charity, with a stated objective[4] that "the collection should be put to public use and be freely accessible".
Does anyone have any ideas for action, or contacts in the Museum, that might result in a change of how loans from the BM are controlled? I'm wondering if the most effective way forward is to make some social media fuss, to ensure the Trustees of the museum pay attention. The reputational risk the apparent ignorance over copyright by the BM loans management team seems something that would be easy to correct, so changes to policy are overdue. My own experience of polite private letters to a Museum's lawyer demonstrates that you may as well save hours of volunteer time by filing these in the bin, compared to the sometimes highly effective use of a few pointed tweets written in a few minutes and shared publicly and widely across social media.
Those of us Wikimedians who work closely with GLAMs tend to shy away from any controversy, wanting the organizations to move towards sharing our open knowledge goals for positive reasons. I'm happy to try those types of collegiate ways of partnering, however drawing a few lines in the sand by highlighting embarrassing case studies, might mean we make timely progress while activist dinosaurs like me are still alive to see it happen.
Links
century_bronze_jug,_with_copyfraud_notice.jpg 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:British_Museum_ Fortuna_statue,_with_copyfraud_notice.jpg 3. Tullie House, Roman Frontier exhibition: http://web.archive.org/web/20161030151228/www.tulliehouse.co.uk/galleries- collections/galleries/roman-frontier-gallery 4. British Museum "about us": http://web.archive.org/web/20170714042800/www.britishmuseum.org/about_us/ management/about_us.aspx 5. Commons village pump discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump# British_Museum_and_blatant_copyfraud
Contacts
Thanks, 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
On 28 July 2017 at 13:11, Richard Nevell richard.nevell@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Attempting to embarrass the British Museum is misguided and certainly would not build bridges for future collaboration.
Perhaps, but as Fae indicates, it might also cause some movement.
What's your - WMUK's, I mean - alternative proposed action?
It might get some action in the short term, but at what cost? What Fae just proposed is to make Wikimedia a reputational risk. This would scare people away from open access potentially doing long term damage.
I don't have a magic bullet, but this kind of approach is decidedly worrying.
In the meantime I can try to contact an appropriate curator. If we can get them onside that is the first step. On 28 Jul 2017 13:25, "Andy Mabbett" andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 28 July 2017 at 13:11, Richard Nevell richard.nevell@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Attempting to embarrass the British Museum is misguided and certainly
would
not build bridges for future collaboration.
Perhaps, but as Fae indicates, it might also cause some movement.
What's your - WMUK's, I mean - alternative proposed action?
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Hi Fae, Andy, and all
I agree that trying to apply copyright to a 2000 year old item is pretty outrageous, although I'm going to suppose that it stems from ignorance rather than anything else. We have some contacts at the BM although I'm not sure about Tullie House Museum, however I'm happy to contact both institutions, in the first instance, to give them the opportunity to correct this. I'll let you know how I get on.
Cheers Lucy
On 28 July 2017 at 13:24, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 28 July 2017 at 13:11, Richard Nevell richard.nevell@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Attempting to embarrass the British Museum is misguided and certainly
would
not build bridges for future collaboration.
Perhaps, but as Fae indicates, it might also cause some movement.
What's your - WMUK's, I mean - alternative proposed action?
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
I see my reply coincided with Richard's (who is working in Edinburgh today so we're not in the office together). Will discuss with him and others on the team and agree an approach. Best, Lucy
On 28 July 2017 at 13:34, Lucy Crompton-Reid < lucy.crompton-reid@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
Hi Fae, Andy, and all
I agree that trying to apply copyright to a 2000 year old item is pretty outrageous, although I'm going to suppose that it stems from ignorance rather than anything else. We have some contacts at the BM although I'm not sure about Tullie House Museum, however I'm happy to contact both institutions, in the first instance, to give them the opportunity to correct this. I'll let you know how I get on.
Cheers Lucy
On 28 July 2017 at 13:24, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 28 July 2017 at 13:11, Richard Nevell richard.nevell@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Attempting to embarrass the British Museum is misguided and certainly
would
not build bridges for future collaboration.
Perhaps, but as Fae indicates, it might also cause some movement.
What's your - WMUK's, I mean - alternative proposed action?
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
--
Lucy Crompton-Reid
Chief Executive
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 207 065 0991
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
Ping :-)
It's been over a month, does anyone know if the Tullie House Museum has removed the misleading copyright notices?
If there has been no contact yet, I'd be happy to send off a letter as a long term Wikimedia Commons volunteer to the BM and the THM for an official response that I can add to the record on Commons.
Thanks, Fae
On 28 July 2017 at 13:34, Lucy Crompton-Reid lucy.crompton-reid@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Hi Fae, Andy, and all
I agree that trying to apply copyright to a 2000 year old item is pretty outrageous, although I'm going to suppose that it stems from ignorance rather than anything else. We have some contacts at the BM although I'm not sure about Tullie House Museum, however I'm happy to contact both institutions, in the first instance, to give them the opportunity to correct this. I'll let you know how I get on.
Cheers Lucy
On 28 July 2017 at 13:24, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 28 July 2017 at 13:11, Richard Nevell richard.nevell@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Attempting to embarrass the British Museum is misguided and certainly would not build bridges for future collaboration.
Perhaps, but as Fae indicates, it might also cause some movement.
What's your - WMUK's, I mean - alternative proposed action?
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
--
Lucy Crompton-Reid
Chief Executive
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 207 065 0991
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.
Hi Fae
You may not have seen my message to this list a few weeks ago that I had been in touch with the Director at Tullie House Museum, who thinks the copyright notice may be a mistake on their part - however he needed to check with the curator responsible who was on holiday at the time. I suspect the curator will be back now so this is a timely reminder to chase this up, which I will do!
Cheers Lucy
On 30 August 2017 at 19:50, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Ping :-)
It's been over a month, does anyone know if the Tullie House Museum has removed the misleading copyright notices?
If there has been no contact yet, I'd be happy to send off a letter as a long term Wikimedia Commons volunteer to the BM and the THM for an official response that I can add to the record on Commons.
Thanks, Fae
On 28 July 2017 at 13:34, Lucy Crompton-Reid lucy.crompton-reid@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Hi Fae, Andy, and all
I agree that trying to apply copyright to a 2000 year old item is pretty outrageous, although I'm going to suppose that it stems from ignorance rather than anything else. We have some contacts at the BM although I'm
not
sure about Tullie House Museum, however I'm happy to contact both institutions, in the first instance, to give them the opportunity to
correct
this. I'll let you know how I get on.
Cheers Lucy
On 28 July 2017 at 13:24, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk
wrote:
On 28 July 2017 at 13:11, Richard Nevell richard.nevell@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Attempting to embarrass the British Museum is misguided and certainly would not build bridges for future collaboration.
Perhaps, but as Fae indicates, it might also cause some movement.
What's your - WMUK's, I mean - alternative proposed action?
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
--
Lucy Crompton-Reid
Chief Executive
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 207 065 0991
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A
4LT.
Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The
Wikimedia
projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia,
amongst
other projects). Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with
no
legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.
-- 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
Dear all
I've heard back from Tullie House Museum and they are changing the no photography signs on the exhibition to remove the word copyright. However my understanding is that they do have a restriction on photography for the items loaned by the British Museum. My feeling is that this is the most we can ask Tullie House at this point, but that it highlights the need for continued advocacy about copyright and licensing issues to the cultural sector generally, and to the BM more specifically.
Best Lucy
On 31 August 2017 at 10:28, Lucy Crompton-Reid < lucy.crompton-reid@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
Hi Fae
You may not have seen my message to this list a few weeks ago that I had been in touch with the Director at Tullie House Museum, who thinks the copyright notice may be a mistake on their part - however he needed to check with the curator responsible who was on holiday at the time. I suspect the curator will be back now so this is a timely reminder to chase this up, which I will do!
Cheers Lucy
On 30 August 2017 at 19:50, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Ping :-)
It's been over a month, does anyone know if the Tullie House Museum has removed the misleading copyright notices?
If there has been no contact yet, I'd be happy to send off a letter as a long term Wikimedia Commons volunteer to the BM and the THM for an official response that I can add to the record on Commons.
Thanks, Fae
On 28 July 2017 at 13:34, Lucy Crompton-Reid lucy.crompton-reid@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Hi Fae, Andy, and all
I agree that trying to apply copyright to a 2000 year old item is pretty outrageous, although I'm going to suppose that it stems from ignorance rather than anything else. We have some contacts at the BM although I'm
not
sure about Tullie House Museum, however I'm happy to contact both institutions, in the first instance, to give them the opportunity to
correct
this. I'll let you know how I get on.
Cheers Lucy
On 28 July 2017 at 13:24, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk
wrote:
On 28 July 2017 at 13:11, Richard Nevell richard.nevell@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Attempting to embarrass the British Museum is misguided and certainly would not build bridges for future collaboration.
Perhaps, but as Fae indicates, it might also cause some movement.
What's your - WMUK's, I mean - alternative proposed action?
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
--
Lucy Crompton-Reid
Chief Executive
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 207 065 0991
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A
4LT.
Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The
Wikimedia
projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia,
amongst
other projects). Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with
no
legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.
-- 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
--
Lucy Crompton-Reid
Chief Executive
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 203 372 0762
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office Ground Floor, Europoint, 5 - 11 Lavington Street, London SE1 0NZ.
Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
Great to see the movement on this! My experience in the museums sector during my MGS residency in 2015-2016 taught me that these kinds of moves are much more significant that we sometimes realise in terms of organisational culture, and I would wholeheartedly support the notion that this is the most that could be asked of them at this point.
Sara Thomas
[[User:lirazelf]]
________________________________ From: Wikimediauk-l wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Lucy Crompton-Reid lucy.crompton-reid@wikimedia.org.uk Sent: 13 September 2017 16:05 To: UK Wikimedia mailing list Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum
Dear all
I've heard back from Tullie House Museum and they are changing the no photography signs on the exhibition to remove the word copyright. However my understanding is that they do have a restriction on photography for the items loaned by the British Museum. My feeling is that this is the most we can ask Tullie House at this point, but that it highlights the need for continued advocacy about copyright and licensing issues to the cultural sector generally, and to the BM more specifically.
Best Lucy
On 31 August 2017 at 10:28, Lucy Crompton-Reid <lucy.crompton-reid@wikimedia.org.ukmailto:lucy.crompton-reid@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote: Hi Fae
You may not have seen my message to this list a few weeks ago that I had been in touch with the Director at Tullie House Museum, who thinks the copyright notice may be a mistake on their part - however he needed to check with the curator responsible who was on holiday at the time. I suspect the curator will be back now so this is a timely reminder to chase this up, which I will do!
Cheers Lucy
On 30 August 2017 at 19:50, Fæ <faewik@gmail.commailto:faewik@gmail.com> wrote: Ping :-)
It's been over a month, does anyone know if the Tullie House Museum has removed the misleading copyright notices?
If there has been no contact yet, I'd be happy to send off a letter as a long term Wikimedia Commons volunteer to the BM and the THM for an official response that I can add to the record on Commons.
Thanks, Fae
On 28 July 2017 at 13:34, Lucy Crompton-Reid <lucy.crompton-reid@wikimedia.org.ukmailto:lucy.crompton-reid@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
Hi Fae, Andy, and all
I agree that trying to apply copyright to a 2000 year old item is pretty outrageous, although I'm going to suppose that it stems from ignorance rather than anything else. We have some contacts at the BM although I'm not sure about Tullie House Museum, however I'm happy to contact both institutions, in the first instance, to give them the opportunity to correct this. I'll let you know how I get on.
Cheers Lucy
On 28 July 2017 at 13:24, Andy Mabbett <andy@pigsonthewing.org.ukmailto:andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
On 28 July 2017 at 13:11, Richard Nevell <richard.nevell@wikimedia.org.ukmailto:richard.nevell@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
Attempting to embarrass the British Museum is misguided and certainly would not build bridges for future collaboration.
Perhaps, but as Fae indicates, it might also cause some movement.
What's your - WMUK's, I mean - alternative proposed action?
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
--
Lucy Crompton-Reid
Chief Executive
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 207 065 0991tel:%2B44%20%280%29%20207%20065%200991
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.
-- faewik@gmail.commailto:faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
--
Lucy Crompton-Reid
Chief Executive
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 203 372 0762
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office Ground Floor, Europoint, 5 - 11 Lavington Street, London SE1 0NZ.
Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.
--
Lucy Crompton-Reid
Chief Executive
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 203 372 0762
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office Ground Floor, Europoint, 5 - 11 Lavington Street, London SE1 0NZ.
Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.
Indeed, and congratulations to Lucy and the team on securing this progress with Tullie House. I do think it is important to acknowledge progress as much as it is to keep pushing for better practice.
With this in mind, are we content that we are doing everything we can as a community to make it easier for museums to do the right thing than to default to a risk-averse legacy practice?
All best,
Nick Poole
From: Wikimediauk-l [mailto:wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Sara Thomas Sent: 13 September 2017 19:06 To: UK Wikimedia mailing list Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum
Great to see the movement on this! My experience in the museums sector during my MGS residency in 2015-2016 taught me that these kinds of moves are much more significant that we sometimes realise in terms of organisational culture, and I would wholeheartedly support the notion that this is the most that could be asked of them at this point.
Sara Thomas
[[User:lirazelf]]
________________________________ From: Wikimediauk-l <wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org> on behalf of Lucy Crompton-Reid <lucy.crompton-reid@wikimedia.org.ukmailto:lucy.crompton-reid@wikimedia.org.uk> Sent: 13 September 2017 16:05 To: UK Wikimedia mailing list Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum
Dear all
I've heard back from Tullie House Museum and they are changing the no photography signs on the exhibition to remove the word copyright. However my understanding is that they do have a restriction on photography for the items loaned by the British Museum. My feeling is that this is the most we can ask Tullie House at this point, but that it highlights the need for continued advocacy about copyright and licensing issues to the cultural sector generally, and to the BM more specifically.
Best Lucy
On 31 August 2017 at 10:28, Lucy Crompton-Reid <lucy.crompton-reid@wikimedia.org.ukmailto:lucy.crompton-reid@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote: Hi Fae
You may not have seen my message to this list a few weeks ago that I had been in touch with the Director at Tullie House Museum, who thinks the copyright notice may be a mistake on their part - however he needed to check with the curator responsible who was on holiday at the time. I suspect the curator will be back now so this is a timely reminder to chase this up, which I will do!
Cheers Lucy
On 30 August 2017 at 19:50, Fæ <faewik@gmail.commailto:faewik@gmail.com> wrote: Ping :-)
It's been over a month, does anyone know if the Tullie House Museum has removed the misleading copyright notices?
If there has been no contact yet, I'd be happy to send off a letter as a long term Wikimedia Commons volunteer to the BM and the THM for an official response that I can add to the record on Commons.
Thanks, Fae
On 28 July 2017 at 13:34, Lucy Crompton-Reid <lucy.crompton-reid@wikimedia.org.ukmailto:lucy.crompton-reid@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
Hi Fae, Andy, and all
I agree that trying to apply copyright to a 2000 year old item is pretty outrageous, although I'm going to suppose that it stems from ignorance rather than anything else. We have some contacts at the BM although I'm not sure about Tullie House Museum, however I'm happy to contact both institutions, in the first instance, to give them the opportunity to correct this. I'll let you know how I get on.
Cheers Lucy
On 28 July 2017 at 13:24, Andy Mabbett <andy@pigsonthewing.org.ukmailto:andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
On 28 July 2017 at 13:11, Richard Nevell <richard.nevell@wikimedia.org.ukmailto:richard.nevell@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
Attempting to embarrass the British Museum is misguided and certainly would not build bridges for future collaboration.
Perhaps, but as Fae indicates, it might also cause some movement.
What's your - WMUK's, I mean - alternative proposed action?
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
--
Lucy Crompton-Reid
Chief Executive
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 207 065 0991tel:%2B44%20%280%29%20207%20065%200991
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.
-- faewik@gmail.commailto:faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.orgmailto:wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
--
Lucy Crompton-Reid
Chief Executive
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 203 372 0762
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office Ground Floor, Europoint, 5 - 11 Lavington Street, London SE1 0NZ.
Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.
--
Lucy Crompton-Reid
Chief Executive
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 203 372 0762
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office Ground Floor, Europoint, 5 - 11 Lavington Street, London SE1 0NZ.
Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.
________________________________ Message protected by MailGuard: e-mail anti-virus, anti-spam and content filtering. http://www.mailguard.com.au
Report this message as spamhttps://console.mailguard.com.au/ras/1RFtAiI0RD/5qrSkBk7iiW4hWo9WMTt7q/0.2
On 14 September 2017 at 08:21, Nick Poole Nick.Poole@cilip.org.uk wrote:
Indeed, and congratulations to Lucy and the team on securing this progress with Tullie House. I do think it is important to acknowledge progress as much as it is to keep pushing for better practice.
Yes, Lucy's reaching out worked and I'm grateful for that effort.
However, as far as I'm aware, nothing was planned, and indeed nothing has happened for a few years now, to address institutional copyfraud in the UK, despite some of the most globally famous cases occurring in this country, such as the National Portrait Gallery.[1] Shamefully, even standard texts that professionals refer to for UK IP law, incorrectly treat "sweat of the brow" as being definitive, rather than it being legally untested and hypothetical.
With this in mind, are we content that we are doing everything we can as a community to make it easier for museums to do the right thing than to default to a risk-averse legacy practice?
With regard to community, the previous UK GLAM-wiki network that started the global movement around the time I was the UK national GLAM coordinator has gradually evaporated, but has left behind assets like the Outreach wiki. The GLAM community is gradually becoming directed by the WMF, which considering recent events with some chapters, I think is actually a good thing both in terms of funding, longevity and reputation. If you are looking for case studies and material to provide to institutions then get in touch with Sadads[2], though as the chapter has produced materials and reports in the past, including advice for institutions wanting to provide better open access, the starting point should be the CEO reviewing existing assets with her staff.
Without volunteers prepared to invest weeks of their time creating more materials and planning meetings with GLAMs, WMUK must rely on its full time staff to do most of this work. If educating or simply prompting GLAMs on their open access strategies by truly managing relationships, rather than just sending out leaflets, is not in the coming annual plan, perhaps the WMUK trustees should have a chat with the CEO about how to move this forward and for the chapter to become seen as a reliable institution to turn to for advice, rather than leaving it to the tertiary education bodies which have been leading UK improvements to, and interpretation of, Open Access or avoiding copyfraud.
Museums/GLAMs are going to stay risk averse with their collections. If we presume this will stay true for the foreseeable future, then "risk averse" needs to include avoiding the reputational risk of copyfraud as a more urgent issue than saving some money by never bothering correctly to assess the copyright status of media and artefacts. If we take two obvious case studies familiar to WMUK:
(A) The British Museum is a leader in open access, making its main database open to the public online several years ago and supporting the Portable Antiquities Scheme database (PAS) which has an excellent licensing strategy for content and photographs, so that reuse on our projects is actually encouraged.[3] The main database has understandable licensing restrictions, primarily because artefact photographs and catalogue text were produced long before current expectations for open licensing existed. Right now is an excellent time for WMUK to refresh its contacts at the BM as there is an opportunity to influence planned changes to the way this works. The Tullie House case is a good starting point to ensure that the BM changes its loan procedures to never have restrictions on photography for ancient artefacts that cannot be damaged by being photographed, and ensure than no receiving institution does anything which even looks like copyfraud.
(B) The Imperial War museum the best case study of how not to do it in the UK. In the last two years the IWM has systematically watermarked all their 500,000+ online images and videos, even though the vast majority of their collection is public domain. Their archive was created by the Government and has the single purpose of being held in trust for the benefit of the public, so their odd approach of damaging the images with watermarks and falsely claiming all media as being their commercial copyright, even public domain media taken from other archives, to ensure that they can cash in and use the archive as a retail outlet, is not just bizarre, but blatant and deliberate copyfraud. Yes, they have been a hobby-horse of mine for a few years now, but we have no better counter-example and their approach has actually got worse in the last 4 years. I doubt their current management team care much about anyone making public statements about their copyfraud, so the only hope of changing their misuse of public domain material would be to foster contacts on the IWM board of trustees. As an independent volunteer I'm free to write to the trustees to make a case, in a way that the chapter never would; given my understanding of their recent managerial changes/issues and organizational challenges, I suspect that harder approach may be more effective than spending another four years trying soft soap.
P.S. Nick, while you are here, at your next meeting could you ask your CEO to ensure that all emails from chapter domain addresses are properly archived. If there is a PR, legal, or financial incident and, say, a journalist is making claims about the chapter, you should be able to definitively refer to your records, which legally includes chapter emails.
Cheers, Fae
Links 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Portrait_Gallery_and_Wikimedia_Founda... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Astinson_(WMF) 3. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Project_list/PAS
On 28 July 2017 at 13:24 Andy Mabbett <andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote: On 28 July 2017 at 13:11, Richard Nevell <richard.nevell@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote: > Attempting to embarrass the British Museum is misguided and certainly > would > not build bridges for future collaboration. Perhaps, but as Fae indicates, it might also cause some movement. What's your - WMUK's, I mean - alternative proposed action?
As a Cumbrian by upbringing (not so far from Carlisle), I would suggest not attributing anything to anything when there is something else you could attribute it to.
Charles
On 28 July 2017 at 13:24, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
Perhaps, but as Fae indicates, it might also cause some movement.
What's your - WMUK's, I mean - alternative proposed action?
Do nothing. The pressure from camera phone crowd takes care of the matter quite nicely. Remember as recently as 2013 tullie house didn't allow any photography at all.
Per Andy. It would be interesting to see a timely and positive proposal from WMUK. If nothing else to arrange a meeting with the BM loans manager. I'd be happy to join in.
Replying to "misguided", please keep in mind that I supported and negotiated events with the BM over several years and was the (unpaid) Wikimedia UK national GLAM coordinator. I know how stuff works in practice and in politics. Any change that is promised to happen in more than a year is a waste of time based on hard evidence. Fortunately the BM has good lawyers and PR experts, I welcome them to contact me directly to assure our community of volunteers that the institution is serious about the public benefit and free access their board has committed to.
Any BM staff reading this can email me at faewik@gmail.com, I'm friendly and will keep an open mind. :-)
Thanks, Fae
On 28 July 2017 at 13:11, Richard Nevell richard.nevell@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Attempting to embarrass the British Museum is misguided and certainly would not build bridges for future collaboration.
On 28 Jul 2017 13:03, "Fæ" faewik@gmail.com wrote:
The Tullie House Museum in Carlisle has a number of objects on loan from the British Museum,[3] and it appears that it is only those objects that have any restrictions on photography. I took photographs of two of these (without any flash), as the restrictions are shockingly obvious cases of copyfraud, and not for any reason that might protect the works from damage.[1][2] It seems incomprehensible as to why the British Museum would ever want to make copyright claims over ~2,000 year old works especially considering they are not a money-making commercial enterprise, but a National institute and charity, with a stated objective[4] that "the collection should be put to public use and be freely accessible".
Does anyone have any ideas for action, or contacts in the Museum, that might result in a change of how loans from the BM are controlled? I'm wondering if the most effective way forward is to make some social media fuss, to ensure the Trustees of the museum pay attention. The reputational risk the apparent ignorance over copyright by the BM loans management team seems something that would be easy to correct, so changes to policy are overdue. My own experience of polite private letters to a Museum's lawyer demonstrates that you may as well save hours of volunteer time by filing these in the bin, compared to the sometimes highly effective use of a few pointed tweets written in a few minutes and shared publicly and widely across social media.
Those of us Wikimedians who work closely with GLAMs tend to shy away from any controversy, wanting the organizations to move towards sharing our open knowledge goals for positive reasons. I'm happy to try those types of collegiate ways of partnering, however drawing a few lines in the sand by highlighting embarrassing case studies, might mean we make timely progress while activist dinosaurs like me are still alive to see it happen.
Links
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:British_Museum_2nd_century_bronze_ju... 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:British_Museum_Fortuna_statue,_with_... 3. Tullie House, Roman Frontier exhibition:
http://web.archive.org/web/20161030151228/www.tulliehouse.co.uk/galleries-co... 4. British Museum "about us":
http://web.archive.org/web/20170714042800/www.britishmuseum.org/about_us/man... 5. Commons village pump discussion:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#British_Museum_and_b...
Contacts
Thanks, 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
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
On 28 July 2017 at 13:36, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Per Andy. It would be interesting to see a timely and positive proposal from WMUK. If nothing else to arrange a meeting with the BM loans manager. I'd be happy to join in.
Me too - though it should be borne in mind that the labels might have been placed at the instigation of the THM, with no BM involvement.
While the text on the labels is obviously wrong, I see no evidence of copyfraud by the BM.
The labels are most likely placed by the Tullie House Museum in a (confused) effort to comply with a contractual term of the loan, under which the receiving museum must not allow photography.
Such terms are pretty common where works are sent out on loan, sometimes to protect delicate artworks from flash. Here of course there is no need for such protection.
A quiet word with Tullie House Museum would seem the best way forward, first to see whether they are indeed required by the BM to prohibit photography, and second to explain that any such restriction has nothing to do with copyright and should not be expressed as such. Enquiry and education, not shaming.
Michael
On 28 Jul 2017, at 13:11, Richard Nevell richard.nevell@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Attempting to embarrass the British Museum is misguided and certainly would not build bridges for future collaboration.
On 28 Jul 2017 13:03, "Fæ" faewik@gmail.com wrote: The Tullie House Museum in Carlisle has a number of objects on loan from the British Museum,[3] and it appears that it is only those objects that have any restrictions on photography. I took photographs of two of these (without any flash), as the restrictions are shockingly obvious cases of copyfraud, and not for any reason that might protect the works from damage.[1][2] It seems incomprehensible as to why the British Museum would ever want to make copyright claims over ~2,000 year old works especially considering they are not a money-making commercial enterprise, but a National institute and charity, with a stated objective[4] that "the collection should be put to public use and be freely accessible".
Does anyone have any ideas for action, or contacts in the Museum, that might result in a change of how loans from the BM are controlled? I'm wondering if the most effective way forward is to make some social media fuss, to ensure the Trustees of the museum pay attention. The reputational risk the apparent ignorance over copyright by the BM loans management team seems something that would be easy to correct, so changes to policy are overdue. My own experience of polite private letters to a Museum's lawyer demonstrates that you may as well save hours of volunteer time by filing these in the bin, compared to the sometimes highly effective use of a few pointed tweets written in a few minutes and shared publicly and widely across social media.
Those of us Wikimedians who work closely with GLAMs tend to shy away from any controversy, wanting the organizations to move towards sharing our open knowledge goals for positive reasons. I'm happy to try those types of collegiate ways of partnering, however drawing a few lines in the sand by highlighting embarrassing case studies, might mean we make timely progress while activist dinosaurs like me are still alive to see it happen.
Links
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:British_Museum_2nd_century_bronze_ju...
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:British_Museum_Fortuna_statue,_with_...
- Tullie House, Roman Frontier exhibition:
http://web.archive.org/web/20161030151228/www.tulliehouse.co.uk/galleries-co... 4. British Museum "about us": http://web.archive.org/web/20170714042800/www.britishmuseum.org/about_us/man... 5. Commons village pump discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#British_Museum_and_b...
Contacts
Thanks, 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
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Thanks for the feedback. Just to be clear, this absolutely is a classic example of copyfraud. To say "I see no evidence of copyfraud by the BM" is precisely correct, however this is still copyfraud. It's an example that is very handy for Wikimedia Commons to use to illustrate its own policies with regard to deletions and allowed photographs where there are false claims of copyright being made. Certainly I would be extremely concerned if the Wikimedia Foundation were in any way funding events or projects in partnership with a GLAM institution that continues to propagate copyfraud, rather than taking positive action to stamp it out.
We can see by simply looking at the photographs that copyfraud is being committed by the Tullie House Museum, as they give members of the public tickets for the exhibition, and are fully responsible for the exhibition itself. I agree it is not clear yet whether the British Museum have specifically required the Tullie House Museum to use this particular sign and text. That would be a great question to get answered.
I find it highly unlikely that the THM have used a notice that was not agreed with the BM, in just the same way as the text of the related labels and posters would be agreed. Despite the same exhibition having many other artefacts from different museums across Europe and several objects on loan from personal collections, I could not see any other signs of this type against anything other than objects on loan from the BM.
Thanks, Fae
On 28 July 2017 at 14:14, Michael Maggs michael@maggs.name wrote:
While the text on the labels is obviously wrong, I see no evidence of copyfraud by the BM.
The labels are most likely placed by the Tullie House Museum in a (confused) effort to comply with a contractual term of the loan, under which the receiving museum must not allow photography.
Such terms are pretty common where works are sent out on loan, sometimes to protect delicate artworks from flash. Here of course there is no need for such protection.
A quiet word with Tullie House Museum would seem the best way forward, first to see whether they are indeed required by the BM to prohibit photography, and second to explain that any such restriction has nothing to do with copyright and should not be expressed as such. Enquiry and education, not shaming.
Michael
On 28 Jul 2017, at 13:11, Richard Nevell richard.nevell@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Attempting to embarrass the British Museum is misguided and certainly would not build bridges for future collaboration.
On 28 Jul 2017 13:03, "Fæ" faewik@gmail.com wrote:
The Tullie House Museum in Carlisle has a number of objects on loan from the British Museum,[3] and it appears that it is only those objects that have any restrictions on photography. I took photographs of two of these (without any flash), as the restrictions are shockingly obvious cases of copyfraud, and not for any reason that might protect the works from damage.[1][2] It seems incomprehensible as to why the British Museum would ever want to make copyright claims over ~2,000 year old works especially considering they are not a money-making commercial enterprise, but a National institute and charity, with a stated objective[4] that "the collection should be put to public use and be freely accessible".
Does anyone have any ideas for action, or contacts in the Museum, that might result in a change of how loans from the BM are controlled? I'm wondering if the most effective way forward is to make some social media fuss, to ensure the Trustees of the museum pay attention. The reputational risk the apparent ignorance over copyright by the BM loans management team seems something that would be easy to correct, so changes to policy are overdue. My own experience of polite private letters to a Museum's lawyer demonstrates that you may as well save hours of volunteer time by filing these in the bin, compared to the sometimes highly effective use of a few pointed tweets written in a few minutes and shared publicly and widely across social media.
Those of us Wikimedians who work closely with GLAMs tend to shy away from any controversy, wanting the organizations to move towards sharing our open knowledge goals for positive reasons. I'm happy to try those types of collegiate ways of partnering, however drawing a few lines in the sand by highlighting embarrassing case studies, might mean we make timely progress while activist dinosaurs like me are still alive to see it happen.
Links
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:British_Museum_2nd_century_bronze_ju... 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:British_Museum_Fortuna_statue,_with_... 3. Tullie House, Roman Frontier exhibition:
http://web.archive.org/web/20161030151228/www.tulliehouse.co.uk/galleries-co... 4. British Museum "about us":
http://web.archive.org/web/20170714042800/www.britishmuseum.org/about_us/man... 5. Commons village pump discussion:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#British_Museum_and_b...
Contacts
Thanks, 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
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Trigger warning: sensible suggestions, I know those can be upsetting
Might a friendly email to the museum have helped, just explaining the issue and suggesting a solution?
On 28 Jul 2017 14:32, "Fæ" faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the feedback. Just to be clear, this absolutely is a classic example of copyfraud. To say "I see no evidence of copyfraud by the BM" is precisely correct, however this is still copyfraud. It's an example that is very handy for Wikimedia Commons to use to illustrate its own policies with regard to deletions and allowed photographs where there are false claims of copyright being made. Certainly I would be extremely concerned if the Wikimedia Foundation were in any way funding events or projects in partnership with a GLAM institution that continues to propagate copyfraud, rather than taking positive action to stamp it out.
We can see by simply looking at the photographs that copyfraud is being committed by the Tullie House Museum, as they give members of the public tickets for the exhibition, and are fully responsible for the exhibition itself. I agree it is not clear yet whether the British Museum have specifically required the Tullie House Museum to use this particular sign and text. That would be a great question to get answered.
I find it highly unlikely that the THM have used a notice that was not agreed with the BM, in just the same way as the text of the related labels and posters would be agreed. Despite the same exhibition having many other artefacts from different museums across Europe and several objects on loan from personal collections, I could not see any other signs of this type against anything other than objects on loan from the BM.
Thanks, Fae
On 28 July 2017 at 14:14, Michael Maggs michael@maggs.name wrote:
While the text on the labels is obviously wrong, I see no evidence of copyfraud by the BM.
The labels are most likely placed by the Tullie House Museum in a
(confused)
effort to comply with a contractual term of the loan, under which the receiving museum must not allow photography.
Such terms are pretty common where works are sent out on loan, sometimes
to
protect delicate artworks from flash. Here of course there is no need for such protection.
A quiet word with Tullie House Museum would seem the best way forward, first to see whether they are indeed required by the BM to prohibit photography, and second to explain that any such restriction has nothing to do with copyright and should not be expressed as such. Enquiry and education, not shaming.
Michael
On 28 Jul 2017, at 13:11, Richard Nevell <richard.nevell@wikimedia.org.
uk>
wrote:
Attempting to embarrass the British Museum is misguided and certainly
would
not build bridges for future collaboration.
On 28 Jul 2017 13:03, "Fæ" faewik@gmail.com wrote:
The Tullie House Museum in Carlisle has a number of objects on loan from the British Museum,[3] and it appears that it is only those objects that have any restrictions on photography. I took photographs of two of these (without any flash), as the restrictions are shockingly obvious cases of copyfraud, and not for any reason that might protect the works from damage.[1][2] It seems incomprehensible as to why the British Museum would ever want to make copyright claims over ~2,000 year old works especially considering they are not a money-making commercial enterprise, but a National institute and charity, with a stated objective[4] that "the collection should be put to public use and be freely accessible".
Does anyone have any ideas for action, or contacts in the Museum, that might result in a change of how loans from the BM are controlled? I'm wondering if the most effective way forward is to make some social media fuss, to ensure the Trustees of the museum pay attention. The reputational risk the apparent ignorance over copyright by the BM loans management team seems something that would be easy to correct, so changes to policy are overdue. My own experience of polite private letters to a Museum's lawyer demonstrates that you may as well save hours of volunteer time by filing these in the bin, compared to the sometimes highly effective use of a few pointed tweets written in a few minutes and shared publicly and widely across social media.
Those of us Wikimedians who work closely with GLAMs tend to shy away from any controversy, wanting the organizations to move towards sharing our open knowledge goals for positive reasons. I'm happy to try those types of collegiate ways of partnering, however drawing a few lines in the sand by highlighting embarrassing case studies, might mean we make timely progress while activist dinosaurs like me are still alive to see it happen.
Links
century_bronze_jug,_with_copyfraud_notice.jpg
Fortuna_statue,_with_copyfraud_notice.jpg
- Tullie House, Roman Frontier exhibition:
tulliehouse.co.uk/galleries-collections/galleries/roman-frontier-gallery
- British Museum "about us":
britishmuseum.org/about_us/management/about_us.aspx
- Commons village pump discussion:
British_Museum_and_blatant_copyfraud
Contacts
Thanks, 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
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
-- 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
I agree with Lucy's approach here. We should try to raise this issue directly and privately with the museum involved to let them know they've made a mistake with the copyright of the object and ask them to correct it.
My feeling is that Tullie House is a small museum with limited staff, so they sloppily applied the "no photo because copyright" tag onto the stands of any borrowed exhibit and simply forgot that this object is >200 years old and therefore no longer copyrighted. Starting the message with "copyfraud" catches Wikimedians' attention, but isn't helpful towards achieving our outcome of actually getting things into open copyright or making sure public domain things don't get restricted.
--Deryck
On 28 July 2017 at 15:52, Richard Symonds chasemewiki@gmail.com wrote:
Trigger warning: sensible suggestions, I know those can be upsetting
Might a friendly email to the museum have helped, just explaining the issue and suggesting a solution?
On 28 Jul 2017 14:32, "Fæ" faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the feedback. Just to be clear, this absolutely is a classic example of copyfraud. To say "I see no evidence of copyfraud by the BM" is precisely correct, however this is still copyfraud. It's an example that is very handy for Wikimedia Commons to use to illustrate its own policies with regard to deletions and allowed photographs where there are false claims of copyright being made. Certainly I would be extremely concerned if the Wikimedia Foundation were in any way funding events or projects in partnership with a GLAM institution that continues to propagate copyfraud, rather than taking positive action to stamp it out.
We can see by simply looking at the photographs that copyfraud is being committed by the Tullie House Museum, as they give members of the public tickets for the exhibition, and are fully responsible for the exhibition itself. I agree it is not clear yet whether the British Museum have specifically required the Tullie House Museum to use this particular sign and text. That would be a great question to get answered.
I find it highly unlikely that the THM have used a notice that was not agreed with the BM, in just the same way as the text of the related labels and posters would be agreed. Despite the same exhibition having many other artefacts from different museums across Europe and several objects on loan from personal collections, I could not see any other signs of this type against anything other than objects on loan from the BM.
Thanks, Fae
On 28 July 2017 at 14:14, Michael Maggs michael@maggs.name wrote:
While the text on the labels is obviously wrong, I see no evidence of copyfraud by the BM.
The labels are most likely placed by the Tullie House Museum in a
(confused)
effort to comply with a contractual term of the loan, under which the receiving museum must not allow photography.
Such terms are pretty common where works are sent out on loan,
sometimes to
protect delicate artworks from flash. Here of course there is no need
for
such protection.
A quiet word with Tullie House Museum would seem the best way forward, first to see
whether
they are indeed required by the BM to prohibit photography, and second
to
explain that any such restriction has nothing to do with copyright and should not be expressed as such. Enquiry and education, not shaming.
Michael
On 28 Jul 2017, at 13:11, Richard Nevell <richard.nevell@wikimedia.org.
uk>
wrote:
Attempting to embarrass the British Museum is misguided and certainly
would
not build bridges for future collaboration.
On 28 Jul 2017 13:03, "Fæ" faewik@gmail.com wrote:
The Tullie House Museum in Carlisle has a number of objects on loan from the British Museum,[3] and it appears that it is only those objects that have any restrictions on photography. I took photographs of two of these (without any flash), as the restrictions are shockingly obvious cases of copyfraud, and not for any reason that might protect the works from damage.[1][2] It seems incomprehensible as to why the British Museum would ever want to make copyright claims over ~2,000 year old works especially considering they are not a money-making commercial enterprise, but a National institute and charity, with a stated objective[4] that "the collection should be put to public use and be freely accessible".
Does anyone have any ideas for action, or contacts in the Museum, that might result in a change of how loans from the BM are controlled? I'm wondering if the most effective way forward is to make some social media fuss, to ensure the Trustees of the museum pay attention. The reputational risk the apparent ignorance over copyright by the BM loans management team seems something that would be easy to correct, so changes to policy are overdue. My own experience of polite private letters to a Museum's lawyer demonstrates that you may as well save hours of volunteer time by filing these in the bin, compared to the sometimes highly effective use of a few pointed tweets written in a few minutes and shared publicly and widely across social media.
Those of us Wikimedians who work closely with GLAMs tend to shy away from any controversy, wanting the organizations to move towards sharing our open knowledge goals for positive reasons. I'm happy to try those types of collegiate ways of partnering, however drawing a few lines in the sand by highlighting embarrassing case studies, might mean we make timely progress while activist dinosaurs like me are still alive to see it happen.
Links
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:British_Museum_2nd_c
entury_bronze_jug,_with_copyfraud_notice.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:British_Museum_Fortu
na_statue,_with_copyfraud_notice.jpg
- Tullie House, Roman Frontier exhibition:
co.uk/galleries-collections/galleries/roman-frontier-gallery
- British Museum "about us":
http://web.archive.org/web/20170714042800/www.britishmuseum.
org/about_us/management/about_us.aspx
- Commons village pump discussion:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Brit
ish_Museum_and_blatant_copyfraud
Contacts
Thanks, 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
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
-- 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
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
+1, Deryck
On 28 July 2017 at 16:53, Deryck Chan deryckchan@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with Lucy's approach here. We should try to raise this issue directly and privately with the museum involved to let them know they've made a mistake with the copyright of the object and ask them to correct it.
My feeling is that Tullie House is a small museum with limited staff, so they sloppily applied the "no photo because copyright" tag onto the stands of any borrowed exhibit and simply forgot that this object is >200 years old and therefore no longer copyrighted. Starting the message with "copyfraud" catches Wikimedians' attention, but isn't helpful towards achieving our outcome of actually getting things into open copyright or making sure public domain things don't get restricted.
--Deryck
On 28 July 2017 at 15:52, Richard Symonds chasemewiki@gmail.com wrote:
Trigger warning: sensible suggestions, I know those can be upsetting
Might a friendly email to the museum have helped, just explaining the issue and suggesting a solution?
On 28 Jul 2017 14:32, "Fæ" faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the feedback. Just to be clear, this absolutely is a classic example of copyfraud. To say "I see no evidence of copyfraud by the BM" is precisely correct, however this is still copyfraud. It's an example that is very handy for Wikimedia Commons to use to illustrate its own policies with regard to deletions and allowed photographs where there are false claims of copyright being made. Certainly I would be extremely concerned if the Wikimedia Foundation were in any way funding events or projects in partnership with a GLAM institution that continues to propagate copyfraud, rather than taking positive action to stamp it out.
We can see by simply looking at the photographs that copyfraud is being committed by the Tullie House Museum, as they give members of the public tickets for the exhibition, and are fully responsible for the exhibition itself. I agree it is not clear yet whether the British Museum have specifically required the Tullie House Museum to use this particular sign and text. That would be a great question to get answered.
I find it highly unlikely that the THM have used a notice that was not agreed with the BM, in just the same way as the text of the related labels and posters would be agreed. Despite the same exhibition having many other artefacts from different museums across Europe and several objects on loan from personal collections, I could not see any other signs of this type against anything other than objects on loan from the BM.
Thanks, Fae
On 28 July 2017 at 14:14, Michael Maggs michael@maggs.name wrote:
While the text on the labels is obviously wrong, I see no evidence of copyfraud by the BM.
The labels are most likely placed by the Tullie House Museum in a
(confused)
effort to comply with a contractual term of the loan, under which the receiving museum must not allow photography.
Such terms are pretty common where works are sent out on loan,
sometimes to
protect delicate artworks from flash. Here of course there is no need
for
such protection.
A quiet word with Tullie House Museum would seem the best way forward, first to see
whether
they are indeed required by the BM to prohibit photography, and second
to
explain that any such restriction has nothing to do with copyright and should not be expressed as such. Enquiry and education, not shaming.
Michael
On 28 Jul 2017, at 13:11, Richard Nevell <
richard.nevell@wikimedia.org.uk>
wrote:
Attempting to embarrass the British Museum is misguided and certainly
would
not build bridges for future collaboration.
On 28 Jul 2017 13:03, "Fæ" faewik@gmail.com wrote:
The Tullie House Museum in Carlisle has a number of objects on loan from the British Museum,[3] and it appears that it is only those objects that have any restrictions on photography. I took photographs of two of these (without any flash), as the restrictions are shockingly obvious cases of copyfraud, and not for any reason that might protect the works from damage.[1][2] It seems incomprehensible as to why the British Museum would ever want to make copyright claims over ~2,000 year old works especially considering they are not a money-making commercial enterprise, but a National institute and charity, with a stated objective[4] that "the collection should be put to public use and be freely accessible".
Does anyone have any ideas for action, or contacts in the Museum, that might result in a change of how loans from the BM are controlled? I'm wondering if the most effective way forward is to make some social media fuss, to ensure the Trustees of the museum pay attention. The reputational risk the apparent ignorance over copyright by the BM loans management team seems something that would be easy to correct, so changes to policy are overdue. My own experience of polite private letters to a Museum's lawyer demonstrates that you may as well save hours of volunteer time by filing these in the bin, compared to the sometimes highly effective use of a few pointed tweets written in a few minutes and shared publicly and widely across social media.
Those of us Wikimedians who work closely with GLAMs tend to shy away from any controversy, wanting the organizations to move towards sharing our open knowledge goals for positive reasons. I'm happy to try those types of collegiate ways of partnering, however drawing a few lines in the sand by highlighting embarrassing case studies, might mean we make timely progress while activist dinosaurs like me are still alive to see it happen.
Links
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:British_Museum_2nd_c
entury_bronze_jug,_with_copyfraud_notice.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:British_Museum_Fortu
na_statue,_with_copyfraud_notice.jpg
- Tullie House, Roman Frontier exhibition:
http://web.archive.org/web/20161030151228/www.tulliehouse.co
.uk/galleries-collections/galleries/roman-frontier-gallery
- British Museum "about us":
http://web.archive.org/web/20170714042800/www.britishmuseum.
org/about_us/management/about_us.aspx
- Commons village pump discussion:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Brit
ish_Museum_and_blatant_copyfraud
Contacts
Thanks, 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
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
-- 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
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
"On 28 July 2017 at 13:02, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
The Tullie House Museum in Carlisle has a number of objects on loan from the British Museum,[3] and it appears that it is only those objects that have any restrictions on photography. I took photographs of two of these (without any flash), as the restrictions are shockingly obvious cases of copyfraud, and not for any reason that might protect the works from damage.[1][2] It seems incomprehensible as to why the British Museum would ever want to make copyright claims over ~2,000 year old works especially considering they are not a money-making commercial enterprise, but a National institute and charity, with a stated objective[4] that "the collection should be put to public use and be freely accessible".
That on of the most egregious cases I've ever seen.
I note that the exhibition, according to the web page (your link [3]), is:
"Funded by The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), Northwest Regional Development Agency (NWDA), Renaissance Northwest and Carlisle City Council."
I wonder whether they're aware of these false claims? I should imagine Julia Reda would be interested, given that EU money is involved.
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org