Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

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)

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

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 wrote: > I do not understand what you are asking me. Do you

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:The_Report_of_the_Iraq_Inquiry_-_Executive_Summary.pdf is work in progress. Charles___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK:

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

On 12 July 2016 at 16:17, Charles Matthews 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." -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

> > On 12 July 2016 at 15:03 Andy Mabbett wrote: > > Neither am I; I asked whether [...] > WP:DTS. Charles___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

On 12 July 2016 at 12:22, とある白い猫 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

On 10 July 2016 at 09:26, とある白い猫 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

On 10/07/16 09:26, とある白い猫 wrote: > > BBC and commercial providers can be compelled on the basis of public > interest since the recordings are briefings of the people compiling the > reports. Not my experience. The BBC has very complex rights issues. Gordo

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

On 8 July 2016 at 15:42, とある白い猫 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

On 8 July 2016 at 01:51, とある白い猫 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

I would be happy to take this forward. Best, Lucy On 8 July 2016 at 11:17, とある白い猫 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

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 wrote: > > On 08 July 2016 at 01:51 とある白い猫

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

> On 08 July 2016 at 01:51 とある白い猫 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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

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)

[Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

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

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

Thanks AndyJust Tweeted on @WiciCymru Twitter acc. Also on @WikimediaUK acc.RobinOn 06 July 2016 at 18:33 Andy Mabbett wrote:It seems that the Chilcot Report is under Open Government licence (OGL) 3.0.Is anyone working to put it in Wikisource?Note that OGL exempts

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

>From Twitter: "#OfficialInquiries project has searchable plain text + HTML versions of #IraqInquiry up online http:// officialinquiries.atomatic.net

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

> > On 06 July 2016 at 18:33 Andy Mabbett wrote: > > > It seems that the Chilcot Report is under Open Government licence (OGL) > 3.0. > > Is anyone working to put it in Wikisource? > > Note that OGL exempts Crown logos and some other elements. Any

[Wikimediauk-l] Chilcot Report uses OGL

It seems that the Chilcot Report is under Open Government licence (OGL) 3.0. Is anyone working to put it in Wikisource? Note that OGL exempts Crown logos and some other elements. Any third party-content may not be under OGL. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk