Liam Wyatt <[email protected]> writes: > Well if it's a public cultural institution I would certainly hope > that they're not giving us the only copy of the file!
Not the only copy... but perhaps the "only freely licensed one". > That would be a terrible use of their role as guardians of their > country/region/city heritage to outsource their hosting costs to us > and not have an in-house database! Compare these two pictures: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Toulouse._Caf%C3%A9_Albrighi._Juillet_1905_(1905)_-_51Fi1_-_Fonds_Trutat.jpg http://basededonnees.archives.toulouse.fr/4DCGI/Web_DFPict/034/51Fi1/ILUMP17664 Same pictures. The first one is free. The second one is advertized as "Tous droits réservés DIRECTION DES ARCHIVES MUNICIPALES DE TOULOUSE". > Any cultural organisation that is proactively donating multimedia to > Wikimedia knows that we're not "merely" a host like Flickr Commons or > YouTube etc. They know that there is a statement of principles, of > cultural free-access, that comes with working with us. Whilst > Wikipedia might have an editorial policy of Neutrality, GLAM > organisations especially understand that fighting for cultural access > is a non-neutral activity and requires people to take a stand. So I > am not pessimistic about this potentially negatively affecting our > reputation with GLAMs. I agree with you here. And I was only half ironic in my previous post: I hope that GLAMs will understand the strong need to host their content on their website under a free license. And a copy on Wikipedia if they want to reach the free encyclopedia. -- Bastien _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
