On 8 March 2011 05:55, Orionist <[email protected]> wrote: > I think that the WMF can still play some part here, and that is the so > called "spreading awareness". I think that bringing up the issue of orphaned > works could win us points with the GLAM community, and could also be good PR > for us too: "The Wikimedia Foundation calls on lawmakers to save world > heritage", "The Wikimedia Foundation spearheads attempt to save 50 years of > world history" or similar titles would be great for our image. This issue > can also be used to point out why we need to promote free content, why we > need better copyright laws, why corporations active in fields of culture > should assume more responsibility etc. It's relevant in so many ways.
+1 on that. However... The Wikimedia Foundation has specifically decided (someone correct me if I have misunderstood) that it is not going to get involved in political lobbying unless it is absolutely necessary (e.g. if there was a threat to the WMF's ability to host without being legally liable for individual contributions, in which case Google etc. would be involved too). However, advocacy does fall very much within the scope of the Chapters' remit. Defending the user's perspective in legislative/popular debates around the world is definitely a field that, though not sexy or fast-moving, the Wikimedia Chapters could get involved with in the future. In this case it would seem the most logical step on the advocacy side of things would be to see if Wikimedia France has the time/capacity/interest to take the lead in this case and try and raise some media attention to the issues of Orphan works as exemplified by the Corbis case. -Liam wittylama.com/blog Peace, love & metadata
_______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
