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

Exact replica should not be copyrighted in my opinion since they are not a "creation of the mind". That being said, the changes made by the one doing the replica can be copyrighted. In this case of the museum, I think the person(s) doing the restoration did a "creation of the mind" since they

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

Actually, on Commons I had photographs deleted on the ground that the depicted building is a replica of an old building which went out of copyright, but the replica is copyrighted (despite my objection). When I myself nominated a photograph on the same grounds, it was kept. I do not particularly

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

On 31/07/17 00:06, Jean-Philippe Béland wrote: > The restoration work is indeed an extensive work, but is it a "creation of > the mind", which is necessary for copyright? > > JP The Cutty Sark was almost destroyed by fire, and was rebuilt. I would say it a visitor attraction (of very high

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

The restoration work is indeed an extensive work, but is it a "creation of the mind", which is necessary for copyright? JP On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 2:23 PM Gordon Joly wrote: > On 29/07/17 02:12, geni wrote: > > Your mistake is in assuming the only work here is from the

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

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:

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

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

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

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

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] 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

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

[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