Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing the Wikimedia Resource Center

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

Fae Since I pointed out that your posting https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump=253364582=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'm

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

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

[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Wikimediauk-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wiki-research-l] Research Showcase Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 11:30 AM (PST) 18:30 UTC

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Amazon Echo' use of Wikipedia; CC license compliance?

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,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimediauk-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimediauk-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimediauk-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimediauk-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimediauk-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

"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

[Wikimedia-l] Copyfraud by the British Museum

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Amazon Echo' use of Wikipedia; CC license compliance?

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