"organisational change is not always easy, or quick! Especially in a climate of austerity, budget cuts etc"
I need the above printed on a t-shirt I think! On Wed, 12 Aug 2020, 20:46 Stella Wisdom, <stella.wis...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Richard. I honestly think the lack of attribution in this specific > blog post was ignorance rather than malice. > I've contacted the Head of Department and they will be adding an > attribution next to the image. > > In my experience, there are many staff working in GLAM organisations > wanting to make more digital collections open, but organisational change is > not always easy, or quick! Especially in a climate of austerity, budget > cuts etc. > However, there is definitely a willingness in the BL to collaborate more > with Wikimedia and for the Library to learn how to be more open. > > Stella > > > > On Wed, 12 Aug 2020, 20:16 Richard Symonds, <chasemew...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Seems like a good solution Stella, thank you! We all make mistakes, >> especially in organisations, and we know you mean well and that this was a >> genuine mistake. I hope Fae will see attribution as fine. >> >> Fae obviously feels very strongly about large museums and open rights, >> and he's put a lot of emotional effort into pushing things to be more open. >> We all have, and sometimes our feeling comes through very strongly and can >> read as a little harsh. >> >> But don't forget that you and your colleagues are part of our community >> too! Thank you for the work you're doing once again. >> >> Richard >> >> On Wed, 12 Aug 2020, 18:02 Stella Wisdom, <stella.wis...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Fae, >>> >>> Mike is correct, this is a British Library blog post, which >>> discusses the Royal Gold Cup, which is an item in the British Museum >>> collections. However the gold cup is mentioned in British Library >>> manuscripts, hence the connection and relevance, for including an image of >>> the cup in the blog post about the manuscripts. >>> >>> I am not sure which British Library curator in the Medieval and Early >>> Modern Department has written this blog post, it may be written by a >>> collaborative PhD student from that section. I'm sure the post's author >>> would willingly add an attribution and a link to Wikimedia Commons, or >>> would you prefer your photograph to be removed from the post? >>> I can contact the Head of this Dept to ask. >>> >>> I am trying to encourage my curatorial colleagues in the British Library >>> to add out of copyright BL digitised collections to Wikimedia Commons and >>> Wikisource. >>> I am also in the process of being able to hire a new Wikimedian in >>> Residence for the British Library (I've been arranging funding sources for >>> this), who will assist with staff training and guidance, building on from >>> the fabulous work that Andrew Gray did a few years ago. >>> So I am keen for my British Library colleagues to have good relations >>> with the Wikimedia community. >>> >>> best wishes, >>> Stella >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 12 Aug 2020, 17:05 Michael Peel, <em...@mikepeel.net> wrote: >>> >>>> 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 <fae...@gmail.com> 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/digitisedmanuscripts/2020/08/jewels-make-the-virgin-queen.html >>>> > 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Royal_Gold_Cup_lid.jpg >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae >>>> > >>>> > ---- >>>> > On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 at 16:20, Lucy Crompton-Reid >>>> > <lucy.crompton-r...@wikimedia.org.uk> 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 <hjmw...@gmail.com> >>>> 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 < >>>> werespielchequ...@gmail.com> 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 < >>>> a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 11:43, Owen Blacker <o...@blacker.me.uk> >>>> 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 >>>> >> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org >>>> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l >>>> >> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > Wikimedia UK mailing list >>>> > wikimediau...@wikimedia.org >>>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l >>>> > WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wikimedia UK mailing list >>>> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l >>>> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimedia UK mailing list >>> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l >>> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia UK mailing list >> wikimediau...@wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l >> WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk >> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > wikimediau...@wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk >
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
