On 28 July 2017 at 21:36, Fæ wrote:
> Nobody believes that claiming copyright on 2,000 year old works
And this is where your failure to understand English and Welsh law and
the history of artifact handling become a problem.
Your mistake is in assuming the only work here is from the 2000 year
ol
Hi all,
Last January we announced the roll out of the Wikimedia Resource Center,
[1] a hub intended as a single point of entry for Wikimedians all over the
world to the variety of resources and types of Wikimedia Foundation staff
support they may need to develop new initiatives or expand existing
On 28 July 2017 at 21:59, Fæ wrote:
> Rogol, it's worth repeating that the only one here talking about
> fraudulent conduct is yourself.
If you write a post containing the word "fraud" over and over, people
are going to assume you are accusing someone of fraud.
Particularly when you use a word
Fae
Since I pointed out that your posting
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&diff=253364582&oldid=253360811
linked to in your first posting on the subject used that word, your latest
email is clearly incorrect, and I think that terminates the discussion as
far as
I kind of am inclined to agree with Rogol. Let's try pointing it out nicely
first. There's a decent chance they'll say "Oops! Someone got carried away
with the stickers", and it's fixed just that easy.
If they actually do try to claim copyright, then there's something tangible
to criticize. But th
Rogol, it's worth repeating that the only one here talking about
fraudulent conduct is yourself.
I'll pass on repeating it again. What I originally posted is obviously
not getting read.
Thanks,
Fae
On 28 July 2017 at 21:49, Rogol Domedonfors wrote:
> Fae,
>
> That single sentence does not expre
Fae,
That single sentence does not express "the issue" as I am sure you are well
aware. I imagine it does not entirely capture your views on this complex
subject either. So it is not really very helpful.
Chris Keating's email depicts the likely course of events better than your
over-excited cla
On 28 July 2017 at 21:29, Rogol Domedonfors wrote:
> Fae
>
> When you use the headline "Copyfraud by the British Museum" (to describe
> the actions of some other organisation) and link to a discussion ([5] on
> your list) where you used the phrase "fraudulent copyright claim"
> twice,there is no o
Fae
When you use the headline "Copyfraud by the British Museum" (to describe
the actions of some other organisation) and link to a discussion ([5] on
your list) where you used the phrase "fraudulent copyright claim"
twice,there is no other reasonable interpretation of your words than to
understand
Forwarding on the worryingly sensible discussion of this "copyfraud"
from the wikimediauk-l mailing list.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Deryck Chan
Date: Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum
To: UK Wikimedia mailing list
I a
Hi Rogol, thanks for your interest. I do not understand your reading
of my words. However when I wrote "the restrictions are
shockingly obvious cases of copyfraud" or "apparent ignorance over
copyright", neither can be interpreted as an accusation of fraudulent
conduct by anyone. If there is confus
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for the info. Perhaps the statistics have changed since 2010. Are
you aware of any more recent studies?
It's entirely possible that the conference that I attended was an anomaly,
but in any case it would be good to have a more recent study (preferably
with a larger sample size a
Fae,
I do know some people at the BM but I'm not going to waste their or my time
on claims that start off by accusing them of "fraudlent" conduct and finish
with demands that they immediately reverse their policies, just because you
say so. If you were able to put together a reasoned case which s
Am 28.07.2017 um 09:34 schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
> What happens when you say "Tell me more"? Could you try please?
>
>
Nothing, "Alexa, tell me more" the same.
Simon
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, gui
Ok sorry, I could only read the text of the email, I can't open the images
from here right now, my bad.
JP
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 8:38 AM, Andy Mabbett
wrote:
> On 28 July 2017 at 13:28, Jean-Philippe Béland
> wrote:
>
> > Maybe I misunderstand what you wrote, but from what I read they do no
On 28 July 2017 at 13:28, Jean-Philippe Béland wrote:
> Maybe I misunderstand what you wrote, but from what I read they do not
> claim copyright over the objects. They only tell you "do not take pictures
> of it". Even if an object is in the public domain, the actual physical
> object is still th
Exposed = exhibited. My French is taking over.
JP
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 8:28 AM, Jean-Philippe Béland wrote:
> Maybe I misunderstand what you wrote, but from what I read they do not
> claim copyright over the objects. They only tell you "do not take pictures
> of it". Even if an object is in
Maybe I misunderstand what you wrote, but from what I read they do not
claim copyright over the objects. They only tell you "do not take pictures
of it". Even if an object is in the public domain, the actual physical
object is still their property and they can do whatever they want with it,
it does
"On 28 July 2017 at 13:02, Fæ wrote:
> The Tullie House Museum in Carlisle has a number of objects on loan
> from the British Museum,[3] and it appears that it is only those
> objects that have any restrictions on photography. I took photographs
> of two of these (without any flash), as the restr
The Tullie House Museum in Carlisle has a number of objects on loan
from the British Museum,[3] and it appears that it is only those
objects that have any restrictions on photography. I took photographs
of two of these (without any flash), as the restrictions are
shockingly obvious cases of copyfra
On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Simon Poole wrote:
> The current (full) answer is
>
> 'Edward Joseph "Ed" Snowden, the American computer professional former
> CIA employee, and government contractor who leaked classified
> information from the U.S. National Security Agency in 2013.'
>
What hap
21 matches
Mail list logo
