That it's a non-commercial licence is really disappointing, but that's

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk

Hi Fae, The reuse seems to be by the British Library, not the British Museum, here. Asking them for £400 seems a bit odd/steep ( https://twitter.com/Faewik/status/1293503130987122688). Thanks, Mike > On 12 Aug 2020, at 13:05, Fæ &lt;faewik(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > Dear Lucy, > > It's just over 3 months ago that your offer to talk with the British > Museum about claiming copyright over public domain images, and > consequently charging academics and other reusers large fees to use > images which should be free to the public. Has there been any progress > and what came of the plan to discuss this topic at the recent AGM? > > As a further reference case study of the British Museum continuing > using what Wikimedians call "license laundering"[0], this week they > have claimed all rights reserved for my own photograph released on > Wikimedia Commons a decade ago to support Wikipedia editathons working > with the Museum, as CC-BY-SA.[1][2] The BM has removed EXIF data, and > not attempted to apply a simple attribution, or perhaps fail to > understand what is required to respect moral rights. A remarkable > failure considering the museum and their online presence sets the > standard for many other UK GLAM institutions. > > Thanks, > Fae > > Links > 0. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:License_laundering > 1. https://web.archive.org/web/20200812105445/https://blogs.bl.uk/digitisedman… > 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Royal_Gold_Cup_lid.jpg > > -- > faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae > > ---- > On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 at 16:20, Lucy Crompton-Reid > &lt;lucy.crompton-reid(a)wikimedia.org.uk&gt; wrote: >> >> Dear all >> >> >> As a number of people have noted already, it is indeed disappointing that the British Museum has released these images under a non commercial licence, given the obvious restrictions to people actually accessing and using them. Whilst staff at Wikimedia UK have many partnerships within the cultural sector, including larger institutions, the BM is not currently one of them. However I will get in touch with them and point out the issues with the licence they’ve chosen. If anyone has any contacts at the Museum they would be able to share with me that would be very helpful - and of course, you are also welcome to lobby them as individuals. >> >> >> I’m not sure that I quite agree with the characterisation of Wikimedia UK as “advocating for a position at variance with that of the wider movement when it comes to claiming non commercial copyright on out of copyright material”. Indeed, in a talk I gave at a Westminster Media Forum policy event on the EU copyright directive last year, I said: >> >> >> “Access to and re-use of centuries old paintings, part of our cultural heritage, is being increasingly restricted by an array of laws and in-house rules within cultural institutions aiming to maintain control of their digital copies. This causes many classical works, for instance, to be unavailable to the public online, despite them being part of the public domain. >> >> >> Part of the social balance under copyright and related rights is that at some point the exclusive economic rights expire and the works become part of our shared cultural heritage. This makes up a large portion of the public domain and ensures wide access to our culture and the freedom to create and innovate. Unfortunately, in the past decades we have seen increasing attempts to restrict our cultural heritage by claiming copyright on public domain works, or by establishing new rights on exact digital copies of old works. These practices complicate and sometimes prevent the digitisation of and digital access to our culture. >> >> >> The [EU copyright] Directive therefore provides for a safeguard of public domain works. We must make sure no new rights are applied to digital copies of artworks whose copyright has expired. This includes both no copyright term extension for such rules and no related rights. The current situation in the UK on this is quite inconclusive, with works that would be considered to be public domain under US law potentially subject to copyright under UK law. Indeed the courts in the UK traditionally applied a very low test for photographic originality, based on the "skill and labour" required to capture the image. In the IPO’s updated copyright advice notice in 2015, it acknowledges that there is a degree of uncertainty regarding whether copyright can exist in digitised copies of older images for which copyright has expired. However it also states that according to the Court of Justice of the European Union, copyright can only subsist in subject matter that is original in the sense that it is the author’s own ‘intellectual creation’. This higher standard should be unequivocally applied to UK cultural heritage institutions, who might be inadvertently engaging in copyfraud.” >> >> >> Previously, at a ministerial roundtable on the directive, I raised this very point with the Minister (at the time), who seemed completely unaware of the practice of copyrighting digital reproductions of public domain works, and remarked that this was certainly “outside of the spirit” of existing law and proposed legislation. Both of those policy interventions point to our general approach towards non-commercial licenses and to issues around copyfraud. >> >> >> However it’s true that we do, as a chapter, work with a broad range of institutions, some of whom claim non commercial copyright on out of copyright material. We challenge this where we see it, albeit usually through meetings and discussions, rather than in public fora. Indeed, much of our work with the cultural sector involves this kind of internal advocacy, and we can see the impact of this in the institutions who go on to change their policy and practice and release a substantial amount of content onto open licences. We also continue to talk to grantmaking organisations to encourage them to move away from non commercial licences for themselves and their grantees - although again, we primarily do this in collaboration/discussion rather than on a public forum. It’s probably fair to say we take a carrot, rather than a stick, approach on this - but I think that’s a question of tactics, rather than of policy. >> >> >> Having said all of that, I don’t want to shut down debate and would be very happy for there to be questions and discussions on this at our next AGM (which is indeed going to be online, for reasons that are clearly outside of our control). As a staff team we have recently started planning this event, which is going to be on Saturday 18th July, and have already started thinking about how we ensure the Q&A part of the day is as productive and inclusive as possible, particularly given the unusual set up. >> >> >> To come back more specifically to the BM issue, I will follow this up next week. I think it will be relatively easy for me to find someone to talk to there but as I say, if anyone does have an existing contact/relationship at the museum I would be very pleased to hear from you. >> >> >> All best wishes >> >> Lucy >> >> >> >> On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 at 12:48, Harry Mitchell &lt;hjmwiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>> >>> I agree that it's only a matter of time before somebody does it but, as with the NPG a few years ago, the BM are likely to be quite upset if we can't get them to see it from our point of view. If anyone has any relevant contacts it might be worth reaching out. It could be that they don't fully understand the difference between CC-By-SA and CC-By-NC and how the latter prevents use on Wikipedia. On the other hand, it could be that they're claiming copyright based on the "sweat of brow" doctrine, which hasn't been fully tested in British courts. >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 12:21 PM WereSpielChequers < werespielchequers(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>>> >>>> Andy makes some important points. >>>> >>>> We know that even if editors in the UK respect what the British Museum is doing and don't upload those images to Commons or Wikipedia; where they are public domain images under US law, it is just a matter of time before someone in the movement, anywhere in the world, uploads any of those British Museum images that are of old two D objects to Commons as Public Domain images that can be used without attribution to the photographer or the institution. >>>> >>>> Of course large parts of the British Museum collection would involve images of three d objects. In those case we can't use the BM images, but outside of lockdown people can either go there and take photos, or if you can't get yourself to the British Museum with a camera, make a request via the London Meetup, and if the object is on display we can get results such as at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miniature_altarpiece_(WB.232) >>>> >>>> >>>> The chapter remains in the awkward position of liaising with institutions that regard it as acceptable to claim a non commercial copyright on out of copyright material, and of in effect advocating for a position at variance with that of the wider movement. >>>> >>>> One option that the chapter could consider would be to shift policy and instead start to diplomatically lobby UK Museum's to, as Andy put it, stop " trying to appropriate rights that belong to us all." Perhaps those on this list who are still members of the chapter might consider raising this for a debate at the next AGM? >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> Jonathan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 21:06, Andy Mabbett < andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk&gt; wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 11:43, Owen Blacker &lt;owen(a)blacker.me.uk&gt; wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> That it's a non-commercial licence is really disappointing, but that's still a little better than nothing… >>>>> >>>>> With the emphasis on the "little". There are two things wrong with >>>>> this, which we as a movement (and individually) need to challenge; at >>>>> very reasonable opportunity. >>>>> >>>>> Firstly, there's the way they're spending public money making non-free >>>>> original content. we need to persuade GLAMs - and lobby funders - that >>>>> such material should be freely reusable. >>>>> >>>>> But far more troubling is the attempt to claim copyright in works >>>>> whose copyright - if the work didn't pre-date copyright completely - >>>>> expired decades or centuries ago. The latter means, in effect that >>>>> they are trying to appropriate rights that belong to us all. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Andy Mabbett >>>>> @pigsonthewing >>>>> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk >> -- >> Lucy Crompton-Reid >> Chief Executive >> Wikimedia UK >> +44 (0) 203 372 0762 >> >> Wikimedia UK is the national chapter for the global Wikimedia open knowledge movement, and a registered charity. We rely on donations from individuals to support our work to make knowledge open for all. Have you considered supporting Wikimedia? https://donate.wikimedia.org.uk >> >> 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 >> >> 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. >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia UK mailing list >> wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l >> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk