Hello,
It can be argued that the current copyright obfuscates the general public's access to the report. I feel it is in the public's best interest to have this monolith of documentation on a more user friendly venue such as Wikisource where it can be more manageable and digestible.
I do feel that any single email from us would be promptly ignored as there probably is a large volume of emails. It may be prudent to either start a petition (for the Parliament) or ask a few MPs to raise the copyright issue in the Parliament.
I may be late to the game but I do have a few copyright concerns which may have been already addressed. I would most sincerely apologize if there is duplication.
I have identified a number of copyright issues with the report.
First of, the websites terms and conditions do not explicitly release the works under a free license.[1] It seems to be more concerned with misrepresentation than commercial considerations. This implies authors could be persuaded to release their work under a free license. For the purpose of our use, the site should explicitly mention a free license.
Moreover it mentions BSkyB, BBC and ITN as copyright holders of some of the documents. Any migration to Wikisource must filter out such content.[1]
Lastly there are a number of now declassified documents that provide vital evidence to reinforce the reports findings, these too need to be freely licensed.
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
Furthermore there seems to be videos presented as evidence. These seem to have "© 2009-2010 BSkyB, the BBC and ITN. All Rights Reserved" which needs to be released with a free licensed as well, particularly sessions by The Iraq Inquiry which has witness accounts.
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
On 8 July 2016 at 02:51, とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
It can be argued that the current copyright obfuscates the general public's access to the report. I feel it is in the public's best interest to have this monolith of documentation on a more user friendly venue such as Wikisource where it can be more manageable and digestible.
I do feel that any single email from us would be promptly ignored as there probably is a large volume of emails. It may be prudent to either start a petition (for the Parliament) or ask a few MPs to raise the copyright issue in the Parliament.
I may be late to the game but I do have a few copyright concerns which may have been already addressed. I would most sincerely apologize if there is duplication.
I have identified a number of copyright issues with the report.
First of, the websites terms and conditions do not explicitly release the works under a free license.[1] It seems to be more concerned with misrepresentation than commercial considerations. This implies authors could be persuaded to release their work under a free license. For the purpose of our use, the site should explicitly mention a free license.
Moreover it mentions BSkyB, BBC and ITN as copyright holders of some of the documents. Any migration to Wikisource must filter out such content.[1]
Lastly there are a number of now declassified documents that provide vital evidence to reinforce the reports findings, these too need to be freely licensed.
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
On 08 July 2016 at 01:51 とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Hello, It can be argued that the current copyright obfuscates the generalpublic's access to the report. I feel it is in the public's best interest to have this monolith of documentation on a more user friendly venue such as Wikisource where it can be more manageable and digestible.
While I'm in sympathy with the aim (I even have the Scott Report on my shelves, which is not "digested") my immediate thought is that the Executive Summary should be used as a pilot project, if anything is actually to happen.
Charles
Indeed, that would be a good start as a pilot project. Does anyone from WMUK have contacts with the Parliament?
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
On 8 July 2016 at 07:18, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 08 July 2016 at 01:51 とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
It can be argued that the current copyright obfuscates the general public's access to the report. I feel it is in the public's best interest to have this monolith of documentation on a more user friendly venue such as Wikisource where it can be more manageable and digestible.
While I'm in sympathy with the aim (I even have the Scott Report on my shelves, which is not "digested") my immediate thought is that the Executive Summary should be used as a pilot project, if anything is actually to happen.
Charles
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
I would be happy to take this forward. Best, Lucy
On 8 July 2016 at 11:17, とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed, that would be a good start as a pilot project. Does anyone from WMUK have contacts with the Parliament?
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
On 8 July 2016 at 07:18, Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com
wrote:
On 08 July 2016 at 01:51 とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
It can be argued that the current copyright obfuscates the general public's access to the report. I feel it is in the public's best interest to have this monolith of documentation on a more user friendly venue such as Wikisource where it can be more manageable and digestible.
While I'm in sympathy with the aim (I even have the Scott Report on my shelves, which is not "digested") my immediate thought is that the Executive Summary should be used as a pilot project, if anything is actually to happen.
Charles
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 8 July 2016 at 01:51, とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.neko@gmail.com wrote:
It can be argued that the current copyright obfuscates the general public's access to the report.
How so?
I do feel that any single email from us would be promptly ignored as there probably is a large volume of emails. It may be prudent to either start a petition (for the Parliament) or ask a few MPs to raise the copyright issue in the Parliament.
Petitioning for what? The report is already under the CC-by compatible Open Government Licence 3.0
First of, the websites terms and conditions do not explicitly release the works under a free license.[1]
No, the report's licence is on the pages of the report itself.
Moreover it mentions BSkyB, BBC and ITN as copyright holders of some of the documents. Any migration to Wikisource must filter out such content.
Are your referring to inclusions in the report, or to other content on the inquiry website?
Lastly there are a number of now declassified documents that provide vital evidence to reinforce the reports findings, these too need to be freely licensed.
AIUI, they are (albeit with understandable redactions).
I believe the website and the report are different - the report itself, on page three, states the following:
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992
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. United Kingdom. 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.*
On 8 July 2016 at 15:02, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 8 July 2016 at 01:51, とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.neko@gmail.com wrote:
It can be argued that the current copyright obfuscates the general
public's
access to the report.
How so?
I do feel that any single email from us would be promptly ignored as
there
probably is a large volume of emails. It may be prudent to either start a petition (for the Parliament) or ask a few MPs to raise the copyright
issue
in the Parliament.
Petitioning for what? The report is already under the CC-by compatible Open Government Licence 3.0
First of, the websites terms and conditions do not explicitly release the works under a free license.[1]
No, the report's licence is on the pages of the report itself.
Moreover it mentions BSkyB, BBC and ITN as copyright holders of some of
the
documents. Any migration to Wikisource must filter out such content.
Are your referring to inclusions in the report, or to other content on the inquiry website?
Lastly there are a number of now declassified documents that provide
vital
evidence to reinforce the reports findings, these too need to be freely licensed.
AIUI, they are (albeit with understandable redactions).
-- 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
Copyright is a restriction on public access on this document that is meant to be released without restrictions. This is a powerful argument we shouldn't exclude. Unless explicitly stated we need to exclude anything that isn't freely licensed. This is per existing policy that should be familiar to everyone.
I was not aware the report itself had an independent license. Why is there a discrepancy between the report's copyright notice and that of the website? You cannot really blame me as the terms and conditions of the websites makes no mention of it.The website should echo the copyright of the report, not override it. This is an issue that can be fixed.
Are classified attachments also under the same license? They should be but is this explicitly stated anywhere? How about interviews recorded by the BBC etc (ie other content such as videos)? Ideally, everything on the site should be freely licensed so that in can be copied to wikisource and commons (videos and media including pdfs).
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
On 8 July 2016 at 16:02, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 8 July 2016 at 01:51, とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.neko@gmail.com wrote:
It can be argued that the current copyright obfuscates the general
public's
access to the report.
How so?
I do feel that any single email from us would be promptly ignored as
there
probably is a large volume of emails. It may be prudent to either start a petition (for the Parliament) or ask a few MPs to raise the copyright
issue
in the Parliament.
Petitioning for what? The report is already under the CC-by compatible Open Government Licence 3.0
First of, the websites terms and conditions do not explicitly release the works under a free license.[1]
No, the report's licence is on the pages of the report itself.
Moreover it mentions BSkyB, BBC and ITN as copyright holders of some of
the
documents. Any migration to Wikisource must filter out such content.
Are your referring to inclusions in the report, or to other content on the inquiry website?
Lastly there are a number of now declassified documents that provide
vital
evidence to reinforce the reports findings, these too need to be freely licensed.
AIUI, they are (albeit with understandable redactions).
-- 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
On 8 July 2016 at 15:42, とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Unless explicitly stated we need to exclude anything that isn't freely licensed. This is per existing policy that should be familiar to everyone.
I haven't seen anyone say otherwise so I'm not sure what point you're making here.
I was not aware the report itself had an independent license. Why is there a discrepancy between the report's copyright notice and that of the website?
Because one applies to the report, the other to the website.
Are classified attachments also under the same license?
The statement in the report (I'm looking at the executive summary) is:
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated.
so you're going to need to look at the individual attachments to determine whether an exclusion is made.
How about interviews recorded by the BBC etc (ie other content such as videos)?
AIUI, these are not part of the report.
Ideally, everything on the site should be freely licensed so that in can be copied to wikisource and commons (videos and media including pdfs).
On what basis would you compel the BBC and commercial providers to relinquish their rights?
The thing is I would rather not go through each attachment one by one if possible since this creates an unneeded complexity. An overarching copyright statement would achieve to circumvent this. I cannot find a single reason why we should not seek this.
Also "unless otherwise stated" is a very problematic statement as the website itself provides that statement to all documents and attachments without a copyright notice. Hence why contacting MPs can be an easy way out for everyone.
BBC and commercial providers can be compelled on the basis of public interest since the recordings are briefings of the people compiling the reports. These document a record of the progress on the report over time. It also provides witness accounts etc. They compliment the report well.
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
On 8 July 2016 at 17:06, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 8 July 2016 at 15:42, とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Unless explicitly stated we need to exclude anything that isn't freely licensed. This is per existing policy that should be familiar to
everyone.
I haven't seen anyone say otherwise so I'm not sure what point you're making here.
I was not aware the report itself had an independent license. Why is
there a
discrepancy between the report's copyright notice and that of the
website?
Because one applies to the report, the other to the website.
Are classified attachments also under the same license?
The statement in the report (I'm looking at the executive summary) is:
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated.
so you're going to need to look at the individual attachments to determine whether an exclusion is made.
How about interviews recorded by the BBC etc (ie other content such as videos)?
AIUI, these are not part of the report.
Ideally, everything on the site should be freely licensed so that in can be copied to wikisource and commons (videos and media including pdfs).
On what basis would you compel the BBC and commercial providers to relinquish their rights?
-- 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
On 10 July 2016 at 09:26, とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.neko@gmail.com wrote:
BBC and commercial providers can be compelled on the basis of public interest
Can you provide a citation or case study to substantiate that claim?
I am not really interested in discussing general policy of the BBC etc. regarding copyright at this point. I would kindly ask we discontinue pursuing that line of questions.
Instead, I would like to point out the specific files that relate to the Iraq Inquiry.[1] These are briefings that should be freely licensed in the interest of the general public. I do not believe we should be discouraged on how complex the process is. Regardless of how complex this may be, we should attempt to the best of our abilities and available resources.
This is why I suggested seeking MPs to highlight the interests of the general public and progress from there. I am under the impression that BBC etc facilitated the recordings and own the intellectual property.
[1]: http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/Search/?query=&sortByDate=False&search...
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
On 10 July 2016 at 19:28, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 10 July 2016 at 09:26, とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.neko@gmail.com wrote:
BBC and commercial providers can be compelled on the basis of public interest
Can you provide a citation or case study to substantiate that claim?
-- 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
On 12 July 2016 at 12:22, とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.neko@gmail.com wrote:
I am not really interested in discussing general policy of the BBC etc. regarding copyright at this point.
Neither am I; I asked whether you could substantiate your claim that:
BBC and commercial providers can be compelled [to relinquish their rights] on the basis of public interest
If you cannot, I'm happy to leave things there.
On 12 July 2016 at 16:17, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Neither am I; I asked whether [...]
WP:DTS
You have quoted me selectively; omitting: "If you cannot, I'm happy to leave things there."
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:The_Report_of_the_Iraq_Inquiry_-_Execut... is work in progress.
Charles
I do not understand what you are asking me. Do you want me to find you an academic paper regarding the BBC for an exception we should seek? Why would I do this?
The question here is simple: Do we seek to acquire these files in the interest of the general public or do we not bother to attempt this?
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
On 12 July 2016 at 16:03, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 12 July 2016 at 12:22, とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.neko@gmail.com wrote:
I am not really interested in discussing general policy of the BBC etc. regarding copyright at this point.
Neither am I; I asked whether you could substantiate your claim that:
BBC and commercial providers can be compelled [to relinquish their rights] on the basis of public interest
If you cannot, I'm happy to leave things there.
-- 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
Correct me if I'm wrong, but copyright protection laws in the UK usually trump claims of public interest. We'd probably need some landmark court case to prove otherwise.
On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 at 23:51 とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.neko@gmail.com wrote:
I do not understand what you are asking me. Do you want me to find you an academic paper regarding the BBC for an exception we should seek? Why would I do this?
The question here is simple: Do we seek to acquire these files in the interest of the general public or do we not bother to attempt this?
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
On 12 July 2016 at 16:03, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 12 July 2016 at 12:22, とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.neko@gmail.com wrote:
I am not really interested in discussing general policy of the BBC etc. regarding copyright at this point.
Neither am I; I asked whether you could substantiate your claim that:
BBC and commercial providers can be compelled [to relinquish their rights] on the basis of public interest
If you cannot, I'm happy to leave things there.
-- 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
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
The idea here is to seek copyright holders to voluntarily release content with a free license, just like how we regularly try this through OTRS etc. No one here suggests ignoring copyright, at least not me. I however believe our regular method of seeking this may be inadequate this time as we will be dealing with possibly for profit commercial entities that may need a bit more effort to convince.
- In the interest of public interest given the very nature of the report, there is in my view a strong argument that copyright restrictions restrict/limit access to the supplementary files to the report. - We seek free licenses to these files to safeguard their existence on the internet since it is not clear for how long the "Iraq Inquiry" website will stay where it is, will it be there in five years? Five decades? The public interest could only be secured if we are able to make copies of the supplementary documents without copyright restrictions. - Our work with the files (wikification) will make the documents more searchable and digestible, easing public access to the report and its supplementary media.
These can be the rationale or part of the rationale we can use to persuade BBC etc. to willingly release such rights for a select number of files. We can debate the rationale further. I feel success of this is more likely if the problem is highlighted (possibly by using our devised criteria) by an MP or several MPs prior to our attempts which could create some informal high level discussion that would ease this process. I do not expect a bill to be introduced or something like that.
We ought to also identify who owns the copyright of all the media on the site in question, perhaps a list of files page where we can identify the filename and copyright in order to manage this. The archive is massive and that is why this is needed.
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
On 13 July 2016 at 01:27, Joseph Fox josephfoxwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but copyright protection laws in the UK usually trump claims of public interest. We'd probably need some landmark court case to prove otherwise.
On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 at 23:51 とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.neko@gmail.com wrote:
I do not understand what you are asking me. Do you want me to find you an academic paper regarding the BBC for an exception we should seek? Why would I do this?
The question here is simple: Do we seek to acquire these files in the interest of the general public or do we not bother to attempt this?
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
On 12 July 2016 at 16:03, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 12 July 2016 at 12:22, とある白い猫 to.aru.shiroi.neko@gmail.com wrote:
I am not really interested in discussing general policy of the BBC etc. regarding copyright at this point.
Neither am I; I asked whether you could substantiate your claim that:
BBC and commercial providers can be compelled [to relinquish their rights] on the basis of public interest
If you cannot, I'm happy to leave things there.
-- 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
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 13/07/16 09:01, とある白い猫 wrote:
These can be the rationale or part of the rationale we can use to persuade BBC etc. to willingly release such rights for a select number of files.
But they do not own the rights to everything. Two cases come to mind:
1) The Archer's Fan Club
2) Desert Island Discs.
Many programmes will use snippets of music that are licenced in various ways (e.g. allowed media and time duration). A radio drama might only be allowed "on air" for a 28 days, or a year, since the rights for the music used are time limited.
Gordo
The media we have are primarily if not completely briefings by witnesses and people compiling the report. If we have exceptions to that we can deal with it but I don't think this is the most pressing problem for the report in question. Our goal here isn't to fix the internet or copyright but rather provide the content of the report and its supplementary evidence on Wikimedia so that it is preserved historically and there is no risk of content vanishing due to someone failing to renew hosting or something.
-- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko)
On 14 July 2016 at 14:54, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 13/07/16 09:01, とある白い猫 wrote:
These can be the rationale or part of the rationale we can use to persuade BBC etc. to willingly release such rights for a select number of files.
But they do not own the rights to everything. Two cases come to mind:
The Archer's Fan Club
Desert Island Discs.
Many programmes will use snippets of music that are licenced in various ways (e.g. allowed media and time duration). A radio drama might only be allowed "on air" for a 28 days, or a year, since the rights for the music used are time limited.
Gordo
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
On 13/07/16 00:27, Joseph Fox wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but copyright protection laws in the UK usually trump claims of public interest. We'd probably need some landmark court case to prove otherwise.
And....
Just being hearing about the change to copyright law (Clause 52) that will increase copyright from 25 to 70 years after the death of the designer. This takes effect on July 28th. It is a European thing....
Might also affect representations of the design (e.g. photographs).
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Chairs_by_designer
Gordo
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org