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

2017-07-29 Thread Gordon Joly
On 29/07/17 02:12, geni wrote:
> Your mistake is in assuming the only work here is from the 2000 year
> old sculptor and bronze worker. 


Cf. The Cutty Sark and Knosos?

Gordo


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


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

2017-07-29 Thread
Hi Geni,

Thanks for your feedback on copyright. Rather than my personal failure
or mistake, I find the argument that either simple or faithful
restoration work on an ancient artefact will mean it creates new
copyright for the museum unlikely, based on the absence of any
evidence I have seen on many Commons deletion requests that a similar
case has ever gone to court, whether in England, Wales or elsewhere.
In fact I do not recall any museum in the UK ever claiming copyright
in this way on a restored physical ancient artefact. The two artefacts
are ancient artefacts, not recent models or excessively creatively
restored, as far as I could tell by looking closely at them. The
massive hole in the jug, which you can see very obviously in photo I
took, is a bit of a giveaway that restoration has not been excessive.
If you have any alternative evidence, it would be great to share it.

If you take this further, it would be best to open up community
discussion on Commons. It would help if you could can pin down the
relevant parts of the copyright act, or even better provide some
documented cases, rather than making hypothecated assertions. The best
place to do that is in the deletion requests on the two photographs
that were opened yesterday. The links are:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:British_Museum_2nd_century_bronze_jug,_with_copyfraud_notice.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:British_Museum_Fortuna_statue,_with_copyfraud_notice.jpg

As for the British Museum reference numbers, this was not an oversight
on my part. No references were quoted anywhere in the exhibition, nor
the exhibition guide, nor did a detailed search on the British Museum
database provide any more information about these two artefacts. I
have no idea why. I do have photographs of the descriptive information
panels against the artefacts, but as these may be copyrighted they are
not suitable for Commons. If anyone wants those photographs to help
research the artefacts further, I would be happy to email them.

Thanks,
Fae

On 29 July 2017 at 02:12, geni  wrote:
> 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
> old sculptor and bronze worker. This is of course not the case. The
> reality is both items will have been subject to a certain degree of
> cleaning and "restoration" (you don't give British museum catalogue
> numbers so I can't look up exactly what). This is pretty common for
> any ah "headline" item that didn't go straight from the dig to a
> museum. Victorian collectors wanted complete statues for their
> collection and even today things can get a lot of work done to them
> (the Crosby Garrett Helmet for example).
>
> The Roman statue presumably entered the UK pre-1972 (if it didn't we
> have bigger concerns than copyright) which means there is a good
> chance it is from the imaginative restoration era. Has the restorer
> been dead for 70 years? I don't know and I don't think you do.
>
> The jug won't have come out of the ground looking like that. Has
> enough work been done to qualify for copyright or is it old enough for
> life+70 to have expired? I don't know. Do you?
>
>
> --
> geni
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 



-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


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

2017-07-29 Thread
David,

Great to hear from you. A correction, as you seem to misunderstand who
I am. I am not conducting public relations. I am not paid for public
relations. I am simply an unpaid volunteer Wikimedian and I do not see
why I should apologize for that fact. The Wikimedia community is
supposed to be able to rely on this list to raise and discuss
organization issues, and I'm writing as a member of the community.

The term "copyfraud" is used standardly within the Wikimedia community
to describe false claims of copyright by institutions, there is no
special reason to avoid the word when it's a museum that is doing it.

I expect to be able to write about issues for the Wikimedia community
using language that we use in our community. I do not expect me, or
anyone else, to have their free speech here limited to language that
will fly well within WMF marketing or that will be diplomatic and
unchallenging for the British Library's public relations department.
If we see blatant copyfraud, the community should be free to call it
what it is.

Thanks,
Fae

On 28 July 2017 at 22:03, David Gerard  wrote:
> 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 like "copyfraud" which was
> specifically coined to carry the emotional freight of the concept of
> fraud.
>
> If you don't realise this, you may not be the best person to be
> conducting public relations on this matter.
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 



-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,