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(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:

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(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:

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(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:

On 10 July 2016 at 09:26, とある白い猫 <to.aru.shiroi.neko(a)gmail.com> wrote: Can you provide a citation or case study to substantiate that claim? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

On 12 July 2016 at 12:22, とある白い猫 <to.aru.shiroi.neko(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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

On 12 July 2016 at 16:17, Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: You have quoted me selectively; omitting: "If you cannot, I'm happy to leave things there." -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:

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(a)gmail.com> wrote:

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(a)pobox.com> wrote: